Full text of Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor, Nos. 1 - 100 : January 1912 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor, No. 98, Volume XXIV

View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

BULLETIN
OF THE

B U R E A U OF L A B O R .
No. 98.

WASHINGTON.

J anuary,

1912

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OP RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES
IN THE UNITED STATES.
BY CHAS. P. NEILL.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.

The Federal law commonly known as the Erdman Act, which pro
vides a means for the mediation and arbitration of controversies
affecting railways and their employees engaged in railroad train
service, has now been on the statute books of the United States for
more than 13 years, but it may be said to have been in practical
operation only about five years.1 During the first eight and a half
years following the enactment of the law, in June, 1898, one attempt
only was made to utilize its provisions. This attempt, which was
made within a year after the passage of the law, proved entirely
fruitless.12 During the past five years the provisions of the law have
been invoked in nearly 60 different controversies.3 During that
period its provisions have been invoked with increasing frequency,
and from the middle of 1908 to the present time there has been only
one period as long as three months during which the mediators have
not been called upon to act in some pending controversy.
The list of formal applications for mediation and arbitration is
given on page 4A. This list, however, gives an inadequate idea of the
extent to which the mechanism for mediation provided in the law has
been utilized, as it contains no mention of a considerable number of
cases in which controversies arising over the application or the inter
1 For text of this law, see Appendix I, p. 58.
2 This case is discussed at length later on, p. 29.
8 The table on page 2 shows only 48 cases, but the cases numbered 10 and 11 cover,
respectively, 6 and 3 separate controversies. They involved the same class of employees,
and the requests for mediation were covered in two applications and were for convenience
afterward listed as only two cases. See pp. 22-25.

BULLETIN* OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

pretation of agreements made under the provisions of the law have
been brought back to the mediators and understandings have thus
been reached over the matters in dispute.
The controversies which have been brought before the mediators
have ranged in importance all the way from a few instances of small
roads, involving less than 100 miles of line and fewer than 100 em
ployees, up to cases of exceptional magnitude, embracing over 50
roads and involving more than 100,000 miles of line and over 40,000
employees in a single controversy. In one year, 1910, the assistance
of the mediators under the act was called for in 16 cases, these cases
involving nearly 300,000 miles of railroad and directly involving
nearly 80,000 railway men. The total mileage involved in the 48
cases in which the provisions of the law have been invoked is over
500.000, and the total number of employees directly involved is over
160.000. 1
In the following table the number of cases brought before the
mediators under the act, the railroad mileage involved, and the num
ber of employees directly involved are shown year by year, the cases
being classified according as the application came from the railroad
company, the employees, or from both jointly:
NUMBER OF CASES OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION UNDER THE ERDMAN ACT,
WITH RAILROAD MILEAGE AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES DIRECTLY INVOLVED
IN SUCH CASES, FOR EACH YEAR FROM THE PASSAGE OF THE LAW, JUNE 1, 1898,
TO DECEMBER 31, 1911, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING AS APPLICATION WAS MADE BY
THE RAILROAD COMPANY, THE EMPLOYEES, OR JOINTLY BY COMPANY AND
EMPLOYEES.
Applications by
company.

Applications by
employees.

Joint applications.

Total.

Rail Em
Rail Em
Em
Year. Num Rail
road ployees Num road ployees Num road ployees Num
ber of mileage direct ber of mileage direct ber of mileage direct ber of
cases. in ly in cases. in ly in cases. in ly in cases.
volved. volved.
volved. volved.
volved. volved.
1899.........
lftftfi __
1907 .........
1908...........
1909...........
1910...........
1911...........
Total.

1 2,350
5 117,850
1 7,000
2 2,200
6 257,350
4 10,440
19 397,190

600
46,350
5,350
380
71,330
2,830
126,840

C1)

4 16,800 6,300
5 15,370 10,705
87
2 330
1 370
38
13 232,570 217,130

1
2
2
8
3
16

5,800
11,050
19,150
33,270
6,850
76,120

1,250
4,600
3,400
7,145
2,685
19,080

1
1
6
7
9
16
8
48

Rail
road
mileage
in
volved.

Em
ployees
direct
ly in
volved.

0)
2,350
123,650
34,850
36,720
290,950
17,360
2505,880

(1)600
47,600
16,250
14,485
78,562
5,553
2163,050

1Not reported.
2 Not including 1 case for which mileage and employees directly involved were not reported.

In spite of the large number of serious controversies successfully
handled, the law may be said to be in an experimental stage, and it
is too early yet to predict that it will meet the exigencies of the future
as it has those of the past five years.
*It will be noted that these figures represent approximately twice the entire railroad
mileage of the United States. This is due to the fact that niany roads have been
involved in more than one case.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

Some of its defects have already become apparent, and in a num
ber of aspects it can be strengthened and improved through amend
ment, but its success has been marked during the five years in which
it has been in practical operation. Its provisions have been invoked
in nearly every possible form of controversy that could arise out of
the relation of employer and employee in the railroad-train service.
Serious disputes as to wages, hours, and ordinary working conditions
have been frequent. In two instances controversies on southern
roads involving the race issue have precipitated strikes of the most
dangerous kind, and in several other instances disputes involved
counterclaims over jurisdiction on the part of different organiza
tions—a class of controversy which is always delicate and difficult
in an exceptional degree.
In no case has there been a repudiation by either side of the award
of an arbitration board. In some instances, as is inevitable, there
have been different interpretations placed on certain sections of the
award and there has been consequent friction in some of these in
stances, but the awards as a whole, it can be said, have been accept
able and lived up to by both sides.
SCOPE OF THE ERDMAN ACT.

The provisions of the law apply only to those classes of employees
actually engaged in train operation, so its practical scope is limited
to controversies involving engineers, firemen, conductors, trainmen,
switchmen, and telegraphers. During the past five years there has
been no serious strike and no important controversy threatening a
serious strike involving any of these classes of employees in which
the provisions of this act have not been invoked by one or the other
party to the controversy; and with one exception there has been no
case in which mediation was invoked and accepted before the actual
beginning of a strike in which an amicable adjustment has not been
brought about In the case in question the strike had actually been
ordered before mediation was invoked. When the mediation confer
ences began it developed that the strike was set for the following day,
and, upon the refusal of the representatives of the organization in
volved to consider arbitration or to defer the inauguration of the
strike, mediation proceedings were discontinued. The strike was
begun the following day. It was costly to the roads affected by it,
caused grave inconveniences and loss to the public, and proved disas
trous to the employees involved and to their organization.
The mediation proceedings provided for in the act are purely
voluntary, so far as concerns either of the parties to the controversy.
The act merely provides that in case of disputes actually interrupting
or seriously threatening to interrupt interstate traffic either party to

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

the controversy may appeal to the chairman of the Interstate Com
merce Commission1 and the Commissioner of Labor to put them
selves in communication with the other party and endeavor by media
tion and conciliation to bring about an amicable adjustment of the
matters at issue.
Moreover, the mediators are without authority to intervene in any
controversy upon their own initiative. Their intervention is condi
tioned, first, upon the receipt of a request for mediation under the
provisions of the law from one of the parties to the controversy, and,
second, upon the acceptance by the other party of the mediators’
tender of friendly offices.
The law provides no powers of compulsion which may be used to
induce either party to make a request for mediation. The employer
is as free to resort to a lockout and the employees to inaugurate a
strike as if the Erdman Act had never been passed. Even in cases
where the provisions of the act are invoked by one party the other
party is under no legal obligation either to accept the tender of
friendly offices made by the mediators or to submit the matters at
issue to the arbitration provided for in the law. In this respect the
Erdman Act differs from the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investi
gation Act, which forbids either employers or employees in the indus
tries to which that act applies to inaugurate either a lockout or a
strike until after the matters in dispute have been submitted, in
accordance with the provisions of the act, to an investigation and a
report has been published by an investigation board.
At the time the Erdman Act was passed practically all the discus
sion was focused on its arbitration features and little attention was
given to its provisions for mediation. Experience has shown, how
ever, that the latter are the more important and efficacious features of
the law. Of the 44 cases in which mediation under the act was
invoked, only 8 have been carried on to arbitration. These figures
do not show the whole disproportion, however, for in each of these
8 cases the greater part of the matters in controversy were settled
by mediation and only a few of the points were carried to arbitration.
In addition to these, 4 other cases have been arbitrated under the pro
visions of the Erdman Act, these cases having been submitted to
i|'-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 By an amendment approved March 4, 1911, this provision was changed and the author

ity was given to the President to designate «any member of the Interstate Commerce
Commission or any member of the United States Commerce Court to perform the duties
and exercise the functions conferred in the law itself upon the chairman of the Interstate
Commerce Commission. From the time of the passage of the act up to the organization
of the Commerce Court Hon. Martin A. Knapp had been the chairman of the Interstate
1 Commerce Commission and had taken part in the negotiations carried on under the media
tion and arbitration law. Upon the organization of the Commerce Court he was appointed
its presiding judge, and upon the passage of the amendment to the law just referred to
the President, in March, 1911, designated the presiding judge of the Commerce Court to
exercise for a period of two years the functions assigned in, the original act to the chair
man of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

arbitration directly by agreement between the parties in controversy
without first invoking the mediation proceedings of the act.
One section of the act provides for adaptation of the arbitration
machinery to cases in which a majority of the employees involved are
not organized. The other provisions are applicable to all employees
covered by the act, whether or not they are organized. As a matter
of fact, in all cases, either of mediation or of arbitration, the em
ployees who were parties to the proceedings have been organized and
have always been represented by the officials of their respective
organizations. In mediation proceedings they have always been
represented by officers of the national associations. This is due to
the fact that before a dispute can reach a point which justifies invok
ing this act it has reached a point at which the employees concerned
have given up the effort to secure an adjustment through their local
representatives on the road involved and have turned the conduct of
further negotiations over to their national officers.
Although the law applies equally to organized and unorganized
workers, it is difficult to see how its provisions could be carried out
with any degree of satisfaction except in cases where organized em
ployees are dealt with. Much of the success which has marked the
operation of the law thus far is probably due to the fact that the
classes of employees with whom it deals are strongly organized and
well-disciplined groups.
From the number of times that appeal has been made to the pro
visions of a law designed to obviate strikes it might appear that
controversies of a serious nature arise with considerable frequency
on American railroads. As a matter of fact, the record really indi
cates that the railways in the United States and their employees
engaged in train operation have maintained more than ordinarily
friendly relations. There are many railroads in the United States.
Upon each of these roads there are six different classes of employees
subject to the provisions of this act, and the schedules governing their
wages and conditions of employment are being constantly reopened
for readjustment.
During the period covered by the practical operation of this law
there have been hundreds of cases in which either new agreements
have been negotiated or existing agreements reopened and wage scales
and working conditions readjusted through conferences between the
particular road involved and one or another of the classes of em
ployees covered by the provisions of the Erdman Act. On the aver
age it is probable that hardly a week goes by in which some one of
these classes of employees is not engaged in negotiations with some
railroad ;n some part of the United States concerning changes in
their existing agreements. A large number of these are. settled
directly without the intervention of any of the national officials of

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

the organization concerned, and, as pointed out elsewhere, it is only
upon the failure of the local representatives of the employees to
secure a settlement and after the matter has been referred to their
national organization and there has been a further failure to reach
a settlement in negotiations between the road and the officials of the
national organization involved that a case reaches a point where the
provisions of the Erdman Act are invoked.
COURSE OF PROCEDURE IN A CASE OF MEDIATION.
CONDITIONS NECESSARY TO ACTION BY MEDIATORS.

The course through which the mediation provisions of the Erd
man Act are invoked is ordinarily somewhat as follows: A contro
versy arises between a railroad company and one or more classes
of its employees coming within the provisions of the act. This con
troversy may relate to proposed changes in the existing rates of pay
or the existing regulations governing working conditions, or it may
arise over some grievance growing out of a misunderstanding of the
terms of the existing contract and involve no proposals for changed
conditions. If no settlement can be reached by the local committee
or the general committee directly representing the employees on the
road or roads involved, the questions in dispute are referred by the
employees to their national organization, and a grand officer, as he
is termed, of that organization then takes the matter up directly
with the road or roads involved and endeavors by direct negotiation
to effect a settlement. If this effort fails, the questions in dispute and
any proposal of settlement offered by the road are usually laid
before the employees concerned, and they are asked to vote upon
whether they are willing to inaugurate a strike unless some basis of
settlement more satisfactory to their representatives than the one
offered can be secured. If the vote of the men is in favor of a strike
to enforce their proposals, the grand officer again opens negotiations
with the road in a further effort to effect an amicable adjustment of
the controversy. If these negotiations prove fruitless, or if at the
outset it is apparent that no settlement can be effected directly by
the parties concerned, one or the other of the parties to the dispute
makes an application to the mediators designated in the Erdman Act,
requesting them to use their friendly offices to bring about an amica
ble adjustment of the controversy and avert the threatened strike.
Under the provisions of the law applications for mediation may
be made by either side. In the 48 cases of mediation and arbitration
in which the act has been invoked, applications have in 19 instances
been made by the railroad companies involved, in 13 cases by officers
of organizations representing the employees involved, and in 16 cases
by representatives of both parties to the controversy. The applica

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

tions made by the employees approach in number those made by the
companies, but cover proportionately a much smaller mileage and
involve a smaller number of employees. This is due to the fact that
when a really serious strike is threatened it is naturally the company
rather than the employees which invokes the friendly offices of the
mediators.
TAKING A STRIKE VOTE BEEORE APPLICATION.

In a few cases applications, either made jointly or by the employees
alone, have been made before a strike vote has been taken. In such
instances the mediators, in deciding upon their action, have been
governed by the gravity of the existing situation. The law itself
provides that its machinery shall be utilized only when traffic either
has been actually interrupted or is seriously threatened with inter
ruption. Ordinarily it might be held that this condition does not
exist until the employees involved have been polled on the question
at issue and have strongly indicated their willingness to withdraw
from service as a means of enforcing their proposals or remedying
their grievances. But the law does not require the taking of a strike
vote as a preliminary to invoking its provisions,1 and in each case
the mediators are left free to exercise their own judgment as to
whether or not the conditions assumed by the law exist.
As a consequence the action taken in such cases varies according
to the nature of the controversy in which intervention is sought. It
is not desirable that the provisions of the act should be invoked for
the settlement of comparatively unimportant controversies, nor that
they should be applied even in important controversies until the
parties themselves have exhausted their efforts to reach a settlement,
and until the public, in consequence, is threatened with serious in
convenience. On the other hand, it is sometimes undesirable and
unwise to compel the employees to go to the expense of polling the
road on the question of a strike, and at the same time to stir up the
unrest and friction attendant upon that process. The mediators,
therefore, have only required that they be satisfied that the parties
to a controversy can not themselves reach an agreement, and that the
dispute is of such a character that it might, if not settled, bring about
a strike with consequent serious results to the public dependent upon
the road involved. Applications of this kind, however, are excep
tional. In the great majority of cases in which intervention is
sought strike votes have actually been taken and strikes seriously
1 Formerly under the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act no appeal for a
board of investigation could be made by the employees concerned until they had taken
a strike vote. During 1910 the law was amended so that where a dispute directly affects
employees in more than one Province, and such employees are members of the trade union
having a general committed authorized to carry on negotiations in disputes, a declaration
by the chairman or president and by the secretary of such committee to the effect that,
failing an adjustment of the dispute, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the
declarants, a strike will be declared, may be accepted as sufficient instead of a strike vote.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

threatened before the cases were taken up under the provisions of
the Erdman Act.
ACTION OF MEDIATORS UPON RECEIPT OF APPLICATION.

Where a joint request for mediation is received, signed by both
parties to the controversy, there can, of course, be no question as to
the willingness of both parties to meet the mediators and undertake
negotiations through them. In case, however, a request for mediation
is received from only one party to the controversy, the mediators
notify the other party, and ask whether the party so addressed is
willing to accept their friendly offices with a view to bringing about
an amicable adjustment of the matters in controversy.
Applications for mediation usually come without previous notice
and as a rule are made by telegraph. As has been indicated above,
they are not ordinarily made until an acute situation has arisen and
a strike threatened. It is essential therefore, if the Erdman Act
is to be effectively administered, that action be taken quickly and that
as little formality as possible be required in the matter of making
and acting upon applications for mediation. Applications actually
received vary from more or less formal ones reciting the provisions
of the law to what might be called simple requests for the exercise
of friendly offices.
FORMS OF APPLICATIONS AND REPLIES.

Below are given copies of applications actually received, showing
the range of differences in form.
The two following are copies of applications made by representa
tives of the railroads:
TELEGRAM.
Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission,
Washington, D. C.
Hon. C harles P. N eill,
Commissioner of Labor, "Washington, D. C.
A controversy concerning wages has arisen between The —-----Railroad Co. and the employees of said company employed as-------- .
The said-------- Railroad Co. is a common carrier subject to the pro
visions of an act concerning carriers engaged in interstate com
merce and their employees, effective June 1, 1898, commonly known
as the Erdman Act, and the said controversy threatens to seriously
interrupt the business of said carrier. You are, therefore, in accord
ance with the provisions of said act, requested by said------— Railroad
Co. to put yourselves in communication with the parties to such
controversy and use your best efforts, by mediation and conciliation,
to amicably settle said controversy, and if such efforts shall be un
successful to at once endeavor to bring about an arbitration of said
controversy, in accordance with the provisions of said act.
Respectfully submitted.
President.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

TELEGRAM.

Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission,
'Washington, D. C.
Hon. C harles P. N eill,
Commissioner of Labor, "Washington, D. C.
After earnest effort to agree on wage scale w ith -------- of these
companies they have refused to accept our offers and on appeal have
voted to support demands of their committee. Will you kindly ar
range hearing in accordance with provisions of Erdman Act and
mediate between -------- and ourselves? Mr. -------- , Brotherhood
o f-------- , Hotel-------- , represents men.
V. P .,------- - R. R.
The following are copies of applications for mediation made by
representatives of the employees:
telegram.

Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission,
"Washington, D. C.
Hon. C harles P. N eill,
Commissioner* of Labor, "Washington, D. C.
A controversy has arisen between the -------- on the following
lines: -------- , -------- , -------- , -------- . This controversy concerns
-------- , -------- , -------- , and unless peacefully adjusted may lead to
serious interruption of interstate traffic on these lines.
The above lines are all practically owned and controlled by the
same interests, and the-------- on each of these lines are alike repre
sented by the undersigned, acting for the Brotherhood of —------ .
It is our earnest desire to avoid a rupture of our relations with
these carriers, and if possible to find a peaceful adjustment of the
existing controversy. We, therefore, request the Chairman of the
Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commissioner of Labor to
put themselves in communication with the president of the roads
above mentioned, as provided in the act of June 1, 1898, commonly
known as the Erdman Act, with a view to bring about an amicable
settlement of the controversy through the mediation and conciliation
provided by said act.
TELEGRAM.

Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission,
"Washington, D. C.
Hon. C has . P. N eill,
Commissioner of Labor, "Washington, D. C.
A controversy has arisen between the-------- on the--------- Railway
and the officials in charge of operations, which unless peacefully ad
justed may lead to serious interruptions of interstate traffic on the
31326°—Bull. 98—12----2

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

various lines entering-------- , on account of the close intermingling
of the business of the carriers in question with the other properties.
It is our earnest desire to avoid a rupture in our relation with these
carriers. We therefore request the Chairman of Interstate Com
merce Commission and Commissioner of Labor to put themselves
in communication with the officers of these lines as provided in act of
June 1, 1898, known as the Erdman Act, with a view of bringing
about an amicable adjustment.
The following are copies of applications that have been received
in cases where both parties to the controversy have united in a joint
agreement:
TELEGRAM.

Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Presiding Judge, Commerce Court, 'Washington, D. C.
Hon. Charles P. N eill,
Commissioner of Labor, 'Washington, D. C.
A controversy existing between The-------- Ry. Co. and its--------- ,
relative to wages and working conditions, threatens to interrupt in
terstate commerce, and in accordance with the Erdman Act, both
parties to the negotiations hereby respectfully solicit your good
offices in an effort to harmonize the difference.
Will you kindly indicate the time and place the hearing will be
held. I'he parties to the controversy would be very agreeable to
-------- as the place, but will be pleased to meet at any point the
mediators name.
General Manager, -------- Ry. Co.
Vice President, Order Railroad —----- .
TELEGRAM.

Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman, Interstate Commerce Commission,
Washington, D. C.
Hon. C harles P. N eill,
U. S. Commissioner of Labor,
Washington, D. C.
The officials of the-------- Railway Company and the---------em
ployed thereon have been in conference at various times during the
past two months; and having failed to agree upon certain questions
at issue, jointly invite your good offices as mediators under provisions
of the Erdman Act, and request your presence here at your earliest
convenience to that end. Please wire answer immediately.
General Manager-------- R. R. Co.
First Vice President, Order Railroad-------- .
Upon receipt of an application for mediation, the mediators usually
wire immediately to the other party to the controversy tendering

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

their friendly offices in a communication of which the following is
typical:
TELEQRAM.

The-------- Railroad Company has applied to the undersigned
under the Erdman Act, so called, to exercise our friendly offices in
an endeavor to settle a pending controversy between that company
and your organization. Kindly wire us the nature of this contro
versy and advise us of your willingness to accept our services in aid
of a peaceable settlement.
CASES OF REJECTION OF MEDIATION.

Almost invariably, no matter by which side the application has
been made, the offer of the mediators’ services is at once accepted.
As already indicated, the history of the law shows two distinct
periods—the time from its passage up to 1906, during which its pro
visions were invoked only once; and the period from 1906 up to the
present time, during which it has been called into play with steadily
increasing frequency. In the one case of the earlier period, the act
was invoked by the empolyees, and the principal roads concerned
emphatically declined to become parties either to mediation or arbi
tration. During the latter period there has been no single instance
in which mediation has been definitely rejected in any case of conse
quence in which a strike was seriously threatened.
There have been a few cases in which mediation under the law
has been invoked by one side and declined by the other, as the table
on page 44 shows; but these have either been cases insignificant in
the mileage or number of employees involved, or else cases, in which
the application was premature, and no interruption of traffic was
seriously threatened. Moreover, these cases are distinctly excep
tional. As a rule, whenever an application for mediation has been
made by either side in any serious case, the other party to the con
troversy has cordially accepted the mediators’ tender of friendly
offices, and negotiations have been undertaken which have uniformly
resulted in an amicable adjustment of the pending controversy.
The acceptance of tenders of mediation come in all varieties of
forms. Below are given copies of two acceptances received, the dif
ferences in the tenor of which are indicative of the different degrees
to which the preceding negotiations, had brought about a tension in
the existing relations between the parties in controversy. It might
be added that in the second case as well as the first a strike vote had
been taken and the company notified of the intention of the em
ployees to withdraw from the service unless a more satisfactory set
tlement of the differences could be reached than anything previously
offered by the road.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.
TELEGRAM.

Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman, Interstate Commerce Commission,
Washington, D. C.
Hon. Charles P. N eill,
Commissioner of Labor,
Washington, D. C.
Your wire date. Ninety-eight per cent our membership employed
-------- vote in favor strike controversy over wages and conditions,
and we have served notice on president of line that unless company
recedes from position taken, men will retire from service. We will,
however, defer all action until-------- , to allow opportunity for ex
ercise of your friendly offices here toward peaceful settlement.
telegram.

Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Presiding Judge, United States Commerce Court,
Washington, D. C.
Hon. C harles P. N eill,
Commissioner of Labor,
Washington, D. C.
Telegram received. The controversy between th e -------- By. Co.
ajjd th e-------- employed is one of rates of wages, rules, etc. The
committee representing these-------- find it impossible to reach an
agreement with that company and will be glad to accept your
friendly offices to the end that an amicable adjustment of pending
controversy may be effected. Answer.
THE MEDIATION PROCEEDINGS.

When both sides have agreed to mediation proceedings they are
as a rule begun very promptly, usually the only delay being that
which is involved in getting the parties concerned together at the
place decided upon. By reference to the date and place where the
mediation proceedings have begun, and comparing these with the
date the application was received, as shown in Table I, page 44,
some idea may be gained of the promptness with which it has been
felt necessary to take up negotiations in the majority of the cases
in which the provisions of the Erdman Act have been invoked.
There is no fixed rule as to where mediation proceedings shall be
held. In numerous instances the representatives of the parties in
controversy have come to Washington, and the negotiations have
been conducted there. When this has not been feasible or desirable,
one or both mediators have gone to the place in which the parties
had up to that time conducted their negotiations, and the mediation

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OE RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

conferences have been carried on there. The mediators have covered
a rather wide range of territory, having carried on conferences at
points as remote from Washington as St. Paul, Denver, and El Paso.
The proceedings are purposely kept as informal as possible, in
order that they may be the more readily adapted to the exigencies of
any given case. Conferences are always held with the two parties
to the controversy separately, and a joint meeting is never arranged
until either a complete settlement of the questions in dispute or an
agreement to arbitrate has been brought about by the mediators and
agreed to in writing by the two parties.
Ordinarily the mediators begin by meeting the representatives of
the side by which the mediation was invoked. After learning the
matters at issue and discussing these in a general way, a conference
is held by the mediators with the other party to the dispute. Suc
cessive conferences are then held by the mediators with one or
the other party alternately, or it may happen that several successive
conferences are held with one side before again conferring with the
other side. The procedure in this respect is a matter governed en
tirely by the nature of the questions at issue and the particular con
ditions existing in any given case.
No limit is set to the number of conferences which may be held
nor to the period which may be devoted to the mediation proceedings.
Some cases have been brought to a successful termination within a
few days, but these are exceptions; from one to two weeks is more
nearly the rule. In some of the large cases where conditions were
peculiarly acute, and a tension existed which made it important to
secure a settlement at the earliest possible moment, conferences have
for days at a time been carried on throughout the entire day and
far into the night; and even what were practically all-night sessions
have not been unusual.
While the procedure usually follows the above lines, any variation
which seems desirable may be introduced, and the only fixed and un
varying rule is that neither side shall know what concessions the
other side is willing to make unless and until an amicable agreement
is reached. This rule has been adopted because both sides are more
likely to make concessions if there is no danger that these concessions
may later on be used to their disadvantage if the case should go to
arbitration. It is always possible that the mediation proceedings
may prove ineffective and that the case may go to arbitration. In
that event, if any concessions offered by either side were known to
the other side and could be adduced before the arbitrators as offers
once made, it is obvious that the side which had offered the conces
sions in the mediation proceedings would be to that extent at a dis
advantage in arbitration proceedings. The rule above referred to

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

prevents this difficulty and leaves both parties free to suggest con
cessions without fear of future prejudice. In the event of a failure
to secure a settlement through mediation in any given case, neither
party at the end of the proceedings would have any definite knowl
edge of what concessions the other had been willing to make, and
both are therefore in the same relative position as they were when
the proceedings began. Neither has gained any tactical advantage,
nor has either had its side of the case prejudiced by what has passed
during the mediation proceedings.
No minutes are taken nor are any formal records kept of what
occurs in the meetings between the mediators and the respective
parties to the controversy. Ordinarily the only thing which becomes
a matter of formal record is the final articles of settlement agreed to
and signed by the parties in dispute.
Unless requested or authorized to do so by the parties to the con
troversy, the mediators do not make public the terms of settlement
agreed upon through mediation.1 It is true that these proceedings
are carried on by Government officials under Government authority
and at Government expense; and it might be argued that these facts
render the controversies public matters. On the other hand it may
be held that since differences between certain classes of employers
and employees engaged in interstate traffic may, if unadjusted, causje
serious public inconvenience and serious public loss, the Government
merely furnishes the machinery for bringing about an amicable set
tlement if the two parties to a controversy can not themselves come to
terms; but that, nevertheless, these disagreements remain primarily
the concern of the employers and employees involved. The mediators,
however, are primarily concerned only with the policy that will
render most effective the operations of the law, and it is believed that
leaving to the parties in dispute to determine the degree of publicity
to be given to the terms of settlement is much the best policy.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN MEDIATION PROCEEDINGS AND ARBITRATION.

In a number of instances published articles dealing with the settle
ment of cases through mediation carried on under the Erdman Act
have referred to the “ award handed down by the mediators,” or
have used such expressions as “ the decision rendered by the media
tors,” thus giving the impression that the mediation proceedings are
similar to an arbitration and that settlements through mediation rep
resent a decision by the mediators on the questions at issue embody
ing their view of what is a fair and reasonable settlement. By
reference to the law itself12 it will be seen that the mediators are
1 In this respect the treatment of mediation proceedings differs widely from that of
arbitration proceedings. The latter are usually carried on in open hearings, and all the
papers, including the award and a certified stenographic copy of the testimony, are filed
in the clerk’s office of the United States circuit court, and become matters of public
record.
2 See d. 58.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

without authority of any kind to impose their views or conclusions
upon the parties to the controversy. Their functions consist solely
in exercising friendly offices and attempting to harmonize the dif
ferences existing between the employer and the employees and by
inducing concessions from each side to bring them to a voluntary
agreement upon all the points at issue. It may be assumed that in
any given case the mediators would naturally endeavor to induce the
parties to come to a settlement on terms that would appear to them
just and fair, but they have no authority or power to compel the
parties to the controversy to yield to the views held by the mediators.
The mediation negotiations, therefore, in no way partake of the
nature of an arbitration, and the settlements brought about through
mediation represent an agreement reached by the parties themselves
through the friendly offices of the mediators rather than an agree
ment imposed upon them by any third party.
ARBITRATION UNDER THE ERDMAN ACT.

The concluding part of section 2 of the law provides that in the
event the efforts to secure an agreement through mediation should
prove unsuccessful the mediators shall endeavor to induce the parties
to the controversy to submit their differences to an arbitration in
accordance with the provisions of the law.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, of the act are aevoted to the provisions
governing arbitration. These sections provide the form of arbitra
tion agreement that should be entered into, the method of selecting
the arbitrators, and provide also for a certain limited right of appeal
to the courts from the award of the arbitrators.
Under the provisions of the law one arbitrator is selected by each
party to the controversy, and the two thus chosen select a third, pro
vided they are able to agree upon such third arbitrator within five
days after their first meeting. In the event of their failure to agree
upon the third arbitrator within these five days, he is named by the
presiding judge of the Commerce Court and the Commissioner of
Labor acting together.1
From January, 1907, up to the present time there have been 12
arbitrations under this Federal law. In only three cases out of the 12
have the two arbitrators appointed respectively by the parties to
the controversy been able to agree upon a third arbitrator. In two
of these three cases the two arbitrators agreed upon a third arbitrator
within the five days prescribed by the law, but in each case the
arbitrator so agreed upon was unable to serve. The fact that the
arbitrator so agreed upon was unable to serve did not develop in
either of these cases until after the expiration of the fifth day. In

1 See note, p. 4.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

both of these cases the two arbitrators then agreed upon a third
arbitrator in place of the one unable to serve; but as the five days
had elapsed they were without legal authority to name the person
thus agreed upon as the third member of the arbitration board. In
the third case the two arbitrators were unable to agree upon a third
arbitrator within the five days, but did shortly thereafter agree
upon such third arbitrator. In each of these three cases, in order
that the person selected by the arbitrators themselves might legally
become third arbitrator, he was, upon the request of the other two
arbitrators, named as third arbitrator by the mediators, who are
directed by the law to appoint such arbitrator in cases where the
two arbitrators first appointed have not been able within the five
days prescribed by the law to agree upon the third arbitrator. In all
the other cases of arbitration the two arbitrators have not been able
within the five days to agree, and have thereupon notified the media
tors and requested them to appoint such arbitrators.
The selection of the third arbitrator by the mediators has been a
difficult and embarrassing duty and one that involves a considerable
degree of responsibility. It is practically inevitable that the third
arbitrator is unfamiliar with the questions at issue. The contracts
between the railroad companies and the employees engaged in train
operation are complex agreements involving many matters of detail
which it is important for an arbitrator to understand, but of which
few persons have any correct appreciation unless they have been
familiar with railroad operations at first hand. Obviously anyone
having this familiarity would be either a former manager or oper
ating official of a road or a former employee who had been engaged
in train operation. While the mediators could unquestionably find
and agree upon some one of either of these classes who in their judg
ment would be absolutely fair-minded, it is obvious that the appoint
ment of such person might be looked upon with distrust by one or
the other side to the arbitration. If the other two arbitrators should
differ, each one leaning to the side by which he had been appointed,
est with which he had formerly been affiliated, should render an
and the third arbitrator, joining with the one appointed by the inter
award favorable to that side, there would more than likely be an
added feeling of dissatisfaction with the award on the part of the
interest which had lost by the decision, and criticism on its part of
the mediators for making such appointment. In any event, dissatis
faction with an award and consequent criticism of the appointment
of the third arbitrator is to be expected; and this would not be a
factor to be taken into consideration by the mediators in choosing
an arbitrator were it not that the character of their work in media
tion is delicate, and anything tending to create distrust of their fair

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

ness or their judgment on the part of either employer or employee
would lessen their usefulness and hamper their work under the law.
In a word, it is necessary that the person appointed by the mediators
shall not only in their judgment be fair-minded in fact, but shall be
free from any present or past affiliations which might justify either
side in doubting his actual fair-mindedness.
In actual experience further difficulty has arisen from the fact that
when a person fully meeting the requirements has been found by the
mediators it has frequently been difficult to induce him to accept the
appointment. In more than one instance the mediators have agreed
successively upon three or four persons, only to find that they were
unwilling or unable to serve.
Such care has been exercised in the selection of arbitrators that fre
quently one of the mediators has gone personally to interview a pro
posed appointee to find out if there was any reason unknown to them
that would make it undesirable for such proposed appointee to serve.
Inquiries have also been made sometimes directly of the parties con
cerned in the controversy, and at other times of interests affiliated
with them from whom it could readily be learned whether the pro
posed appointee could reasonably be considered objectionable to
either side.
It would, of course, be particularly unfortunate if by any chance
the mediators should unknowingly appoint as third arbitrator* some
one who during the five days spent by the two arbitrators first ap
pointed in considering a third arbitrator had been considered and
rejected by them. To avoid this possibility, the mediators, when
notified by the two arbitrators of their inability to agree upon a third
arbitrator, request that they be given a list of the names, if any, that
have been discussed or proposed and rejected. In some instances,
in the hope of simplifying their own task and of finding a third
arbitrator who would unquestionably be acceptable to each of the
other two arbitrators, the mediators have asked each of the arbi
trators already appointed to submit a list of names of persons who
would not only be satisfactory to the side that had chosen the arbi
trator making ,up the list, but whom that arbitrator had a right to
feel would be entirely acceptable to the other side. The mediators
had hoped that perhaps one name might appear on both lists, and
by the selection of that name they could assure themselves that the
appointee was entirely satisfactory to the other two arbitrators.
This hope, however, has never been realized.
As will be seen from the column in Table II giving the occupations
of the arbitrators in the various cases that have gone to arbitration,
the railroad companies have usually frankly named as their arbi
trator one of the operating officials of the road or roads involved

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR*

or an operating official of a neighboring road, and the organizations
representing the employees have on their part frankly selected as
their arbitrator one of their own officials. While on the face of it
this might seem a matter for criticism, it is not at all certain that it
is not after all the wiser course to pursue.
In any case in the selection of an arbitrator each side naturally
chooses someone who looks at the question from its own viewpoint.
It is not that either side desires to be unfair. Ordinarily each side
is convinced of the fairness of the position that it has taken in the
controversy which brought about the dispute and led up to the arbi
tration; and each side probably feels that the inability of the other
side to see the fairness of the opposing contention is due to a natural
bias brought about by its own interests. As a matter of fact, it is
difficult to get even disinterested men always to agree upon what is
fair or right in a controversy of this kind, because one’s opinion as
to the fairness of a position on questions of the character involved
in these disputes is unavoidably affected to a considerable extent by
the angle from which it is viewed. Each side, therefore, in choosing
an arbitrator naturally selects one who will look at the question from
its own standpoint. Unavoidably, therefore, the third arbitrator
really becomes the umpire and the other two arbitrators, through
what might be termed an honest bias, become more or less advocates
of the contention of the side by which they have been respectively
appointed.
In most of the cases, as is seen from Table II, the possible bias of
the arbitrator is plainly indicated, and the third arbitrator is thus
advised of the angle from which each of his colleagues is viewing
the question at issue. Moreover, the questions involved in most of
these controversies are complex and technical far beyond the ordi
nary wage controversy. The agreements regulate every phase of
wage rates and working conditions. Questions under any or sev
eral of these provisions may arise in any arbitration, and arbi
trators unfamiliar with the complexities might easily, if in their
deliberations after the hearings are closed they are unaided by the
presence of representatives of both parties, be very much confused
over some of the questions, and might unwittingly render a decision
the results of which would be far different from what they antici
pated or desired. It may be argued, therefore, that there is consider
able advantage in having present during the period of deliberation
and the framing of an award two arbitrators who are themselves
entirely familiar with every detail of the questions involved and who
can foresee and point out the exact effect of any given decision pro
posed by the third arbitrator.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

APPEAL TO COURTS FROM ARBITRATION DECISIONS.

Section 4 of the act provides for an appeal to the courts from
the decision of the arbitrators. After the award has been filed in
court, the parties to the controversy are given only 10 days within
which to file exceptions thereto preparatory to an appeal from the
decision of the arbitrators; and the only basis of an appeal is for
“ error of law apparent on the record.”
The right of appeal from the award of the arbitrators is, first, to
the circuit court of the United States; and after the decision of the
circuit court either party has a further right of appeal to the circuit
court of appeals. The only instance in which an appeal has been
taken from an award of the arbitrators to the court was in one of
the earliest cases of arbitration under this law. In this case the em
ployees filed exceptions to certain parts of the award before the
expiration of 10 days, but asked that the provisions of the award
to which they did not take exception become effective at the expira
tion of the 10 days provided in the law. The decision of the court in
the case was not handed down until a little over four months after
the date of the decision by the arbitrators. The court partly sus
tained the exceptions taken by the employees but held that until the
final disposition of the case no part of the award became effective.
The company then took a further appeal, as allowed by law, from the
decision of the court. The hearing on the second appeal could not
be reached by the court for nearly six months after it was made. A
year after the award the matter was still in litigation in the courts,
and no part of the award had become effective. The parties to the
controversy thereupon began direct negotiations with one another
and finally reached an agreement, whereupon the litigation in court
was abandoned and the dispute was thus finally disposed of 14
months after the decision had been rendered by the arbitrators.
As was clearly demonstrated in this case a provision for court
appeals in an arbitration act must inevitably either remain a dead
letter or defeat the very purpose of the law itself. Arbitration is
a quasi-judicial method adopted for the speedy settlement of indus
trial controversies. Industrial controversies of the kind contem
plated in this act as well as industrial controversies in general relate
to questions which if they are to be settled effectively must be settled
promptly. They can not be settled to the satisfaction of either side
by any such lengthy process as is involved in litigation in one or
more courts. This fact was so clearly demonstrated in the case just
described that not only has no other case been carried from the arbi
trators to the courts, but, on the contrary, practically all of the agree
ments to arbitrate made since that time have been accompanied by
further agreements between the parties to the controversy to waive

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

the right of appeal to the courts and to accept the decision of the
arbitrators as final and binding.
CONCERTED MOVEMENTS.

It will be seen by reference to Table I that in a number of in
stances a large group of roads, in three cases representing over 100,000
miles of line and in one case directly involving over 40,000 employees,
have been involved jointly in a single case. This has come about
through what is known as a “ concerted movement.” These con
certed movements usually cover a certain definite territory. There
have gradually grown up in the railroad world three distinct wage
zones. These may be defined as the Western Territory, which in
cludes the Illinois Central Railroad and all roads lying west of a line
formed by that road and the western shore of Lake Michigan; the
Eastern Territory which includes the roads lying north of the Chesa
peake & Ohio Railway and east of the Illinois Central and Lake
Michigan; and the Southern Territory, lying south of the Chesa
peake & Ohio and east of the Illinois Central.
For some years past the organizations of railroad employees in
taking up questions dealing with the revision of the wage scale or
of general working conditions have endeavored through concerted
movements to have the questions at issue settled for an entire terri
tory through one series of negotiations. The method through which
this is carried out is somewhat as follows: Representatives of a given
class of employees on all the roads in one of the territories outlined
above meet and formulate certain proposals respecting wages and
conditions of employment which it is desired to secure from all the
roads in that territory. The local committees representing the em
ployees involved then present these proposals to their respective
roads, asking the latter to unite in forming a committee representing
all the roads in that territory to meet a committee representing
jointly the employees on these roads, in order to reach an agreement
applying alike to each road in the territory.
In the Western Territory this practice has been the rule in dealing
with employees in train service since 1906. Thus, in case 4 shown in
Table I, practically all the Western roads were involved in a com
troversy with their conductors and trainmen. In the negotiations
between the roads and their employees previous to the mediation, the
roads had been represented by a committee of 10 of the general
managers who had been given full authority by each road involved
to make a binding settlement. The negotiations on the part of the
employees were conducted by a large committee consisting of some
thing over 160 members.
The conductors and trainmen, though having separate organiza
tions, regularly conduct their negotiations jointly. In the nego

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

tiations in question the committee representing the employees con
sisted of several conductors and trainmen from each of the roads con
cerned in the negotiations and several of the grand officers of their
respective organizations.
When the mediation proceedings began, the negotiations were car
ried on for the railroads by the committee of general managers and
for the employees by a subcommittee of 12 headed by the grand
officers of the respective organizations.
The settlement reached applied alike to each of the roads given
under this case in the table, thus settling in a single movement the
matter of wages and certain working conditions for the entire West
ern Territory.
In the same way cases 29 and 40 represent concerted movements
embracing a large number of roads and involving firemen and engi
neers, respectively. Case 35 similarly represents a concerted move
ment covering the Southern Territory. Cases 23 and 25 involving
switchmen represent similar cases, although the territory covered
does not correspond with that outlined heretofore. Case 23 covered
practically all the railroads leading out of St. Paul and Minneapolis
or having switching service there. Case 25 involved all the roads
leading out of Chicago, whose switching service at that point was
carried on with the organization of the Switchmen’s Union of North
America.
In all of these cases before mediation was invoked the controversy
had reached a point at which a strike vote had been taken on every
one of the lines involved in the controversy; and the entire mileage
was thus threatened with the paralysis of traffic that would have in
evitably followed the withdrawal from service of such a large num
ber of employees.
While the negotiations in the Western Territory with tne train
organizations are usually carried on by concerted movements, it has
been the exception in the territory east of the Illinois Central. The
only instance in which a concerted movement has been carried on in
this territory east of the Illinois Central was in the summer of 1910r
when the principal southeastern roads acting in concert met the rep
resentatives of the conductors, trainmen, and switchmen. These nego
tiations finally reached the stage where mediation was invoked, and
the roads involved may be seen by reference to case 35 in Table I.
In the spring of 1910 the conductors and trainmen asked the eastern
roads to join in a concerted movement to consider their proposals
for wage increases and certain changes in working conditions. The
eastern roads declined to do so, and negotiations were then under
taken with each road separately upon identical proposals that had
been submitted to them.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

Similarly, in October, 1911, the engineers formulated certain pro
posals concerning increased pay and changes in working conditions
and presented them to all the roads in the Southern Territory, with
the request that these roads would join in a concerted movement and
consider the proposals through a committee representing all the roads
alike. The roads declined to act jointly in the matter, and the pro
posals were then taken up separately with each road by the repre
sentatives of the engineers’ organization.
In both these cases, it might be added, the results worked out prac
tically as they would have in a concerted movement. In each instance
a settlement was effected with a single road, and the organizations
concerned then declined to make any settlements with other roads on
terms different from those secured in the first settlement. In the
end the settlements secured over the entire territory were substan
tially the same, although they were secured through negotiations
with the individual roads rather than in a concerted movement.
In cases 10 and 11, shown in, Table I, several roads have been
grouped together as in the concerted movements discussed above, but
in neither of these cases was the movement similar to the ones already
referred to. The facts in these cases are as follows:
Practically all the contracts of working agreements between rail
roads and employees in train service contain a provision that either
party desiring a change in any of the rates or regulations covered
by the contracts shall give 30 or 60 days’ notice, the period being
different in different contracts.
In December, 1907, and January, 1908, the southeastern roads
enumerated under cases 9, 10, and 11 served notice on the engineers
and other train organizations of a desire to reopen the contracts, after
the expiration of the time prescribed in the notices, with a view to
readjusting the wage scale. It was, of course, understood that this
meant a reduction in wages. The first of these roads upon which
the contract was actually reopened and negotiations begun was the
Southern Railway. All of the train organizations declined to agree
to any reduction of wages, declaring their intention of withdrawing
from service in case the railroad company should put a reduced rate
of pay into effect, and the road thereupon invoked mediation under
the Erdman Act. Within a few days after these negotiations had
begun the 30 or 60 day periods required to elapse after the serv
ing of notice of a desire to change the rates of pay provided in the
existing contracts began to expire in the cases of some of the other
roads concerned. In the case of the Louisville & Nashville the date
of expiration was March 1, and it was understood that that road was
prepared to put reduced rates of pay into effect immediately there
after.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

The officers of the engineers’ organization were determined to resist
the threatened reductions in pay, even to the extent of inaugurating a
strike, and it was apparent that a crisis was approaching with the
possibility of a strike of engineers beginning on the Louisville &
Nashville that would quickly spread in turn to the other roads in that
territory.
In order to preserve the status quo and prevent a strike on any of
the other southern roads over the same issue that was then in media
tion in the case of the Southern Railway, the representatives of the
engineers’ organization who were then in Washington filed an appli
cation invoking mediation under the Erdman Act in the case of the
seven roads enumerated under case No. 10. The mediators immedi
ately wired to the principal official of each of these roads a communi
cation of which the following is a copy:
TELEGRAM.

W ashington , D. C., February 1908.
In accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress approved
June 1, 1898, and commonly known as the Erdman Act, representa
tives of the locomotive engineers of your company have invoked the
mediation of the undersigned in an endeavor to bring about a mu
tually satisfactory adjustment of the controversy now existing be
tween your company and its locomotive engineers.
. We are at present engaged in a similar mediation in the contro
versy between the Southern Railway Co. and its employees engaged
in train operation and can not take up the controversy with your
company for some days. We beg to ask that you forward us any
statements you may desire to make concerning the matters in contro
versy and urge upon you not to take any action likely to create a
breach between your company and its employees until we have had
an opportunity to exercise our friendly offices in an effort to secure
an amicable adjustment.
(Signed)
M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman,.
(Signed)
C has . P. N eill ,
Commissioner of Labor.
In response to this request of the mediators, each of the roads ad
dressed agreed to suspend action at the expiration of the respective
periods at which each of them would have been free under its contract
with the engineers to put into effect a reduced scale of wages, and to
take up the controversy through mediation when the mediators had
concluded the pending negotiations between the Southern Railway
and its employees. The mediation of the Southern Railway con
troversy, as is explained below, continued for a considerable time and
was postponed and renewed at intervals until the close of the calendar
year. Although no formal agreement was entered into to this effect,

BULLETIN OF THE BUBEAU OF LABOB.

it became generally understood that the agreement reached on the
Southern Railway would be followed by the other roads involved in
the controversy growing out of the proposed reduction of wages. No
direct negotiations were had with any of the roads involved except
the Southern Railway, and as no further effort was made by any of
them to put into effect the proposed reduction, no other cases were
taken up. The several roads listed under cases 9 and 10 in Table I
are grouped together merely because there were two applications for
mediation on the part of the engineers—one covering the 6 roads
given under case 10 and the other covering the 3 roads given under
case 11. These cases, therefore, do not represent concerted move
ments as is the case in other instances where a group of roads are
given under a single case.
The position taken by the train employees who were resisting the
proposed reduction on the Southern Railway was that the depression
which began in October, 1907, and which had undeniably seriously
affected the revenues of all the railroads concerned in these negotia
tions, had lasted only a few months, and in view of the basic sound
ness of the business conditions of the country was likely to be of short
duration. They further argued that during the previous years of
prosperous conditions they had not received any increase in wages
until long after conditions warranted an increase, and that they were,
therefore, unwilling voluntarily to accept a reduction in wages imme
diately upon the first recession of business. They conceded that if
the depression which had begun gave evidence of being long con
tinued, they would be willing to consider the voluntary acceptance of
a lower wage scale. The net result of several weeks’ negotiations
was an agreement on the part of the road to maintain the existing
wage scale for a period of three months. If at the end of that time
the conditions of traffic were not more encouraging to the railroad,
the negotiations were to be resumed with a view to agreeing on a new
scale of wages—the employees on their part agreeing to waive the
provisions of their contracts requiring either a 30 or a 60 days’ notice
on the various roads that were then in a way jointly concerned in
the mediation proceedings in the Southern Railway case. At the
expiration of the three months agreed upon the Southern Railway
notified the mediators that the conditions were such that they were
willing to continue the existing scale of wages for a further period,
with the same understanding as to waiving the 30-day clause as was
agreed to in the earlier settlement. Another period of three months
was thereupon agreed upon. At the expiration of this second three
months the existing agreement was continued in effect for another
three months, with a further understanding that if the road did not
at its expiration serve notice of a desire to reopen negotiations the
mediation proceedings would be considered ended, the existing wage

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

scale would be understood to continue in effect under the conditions
existing previous to the opening of the original mediation proceed
ings, and could not again be reopened until after serving the notice
required by the contract.
At the expiration of this third temporary agreement the condi
tions of traffic had so improved that no notice of a desire to reopen
negotiations was served, and the existing wage scales were allowed
to stand unchanged.
As has been pointed out, the Erdman Act by its terms is confined
to controversies between railways and those classes only of their em
ployees actually engaged in train operation. Practically, therefore,
the law applies only to controversies involving engineers, firemen,
conductors, trainmen, switchmen, and telegraphers.
In the instance of the Southern Railway just referred to, as is
shown by Table I, the controversy involved five of the shop crafts
and the maintenance-of-way employees in addition to the six classes
of employees to which the law is applicable. The shop crafts were
represented in the negotiations, and the settlement reached, so far as
the Southern Railway was concerned, applied to them as well as to
the employees engaged in train operation. This, however, was an
exceptional case, and the presence of the representative of the shop
men in the negotiations grew out of the fact that the 12 crafts
enumerated had in this particular instance joined forces to resist a
reduction of wages which threatened them all alike on account of the
depression following the “ panic of 1907.”
The application for mediation was made by the railway company,
but as the train employees had united with the shop crafts in the
existing controversy, and as they felt obliged not to accept any settle
ment that could not be agreed upon by all the crafts interested,
representatives of each of the crafts involved appeared on the com
mittee that conducted the negotiations.
This is the only case in which negotiations carried on under the
law have been directly concerned with controversies involving any
class of employees other than those engaged in train operation. In
a number of instances informal applications have been received to
take up cases involving only shop employees or maintenance-of-way
employees. However willing the mediators might feel personally to
take up any case in which they could be of service, they have not felt
that they had authority under the law to consider such cases. Even
if they had felt warranted in undertaking such cases, it would prob
ably have been unwise to do so. Both the mediators designated in
the law have primarily been appointed for other important duties,
and frequently the demands upon their time prove a serious burden
and render it extremely difficult to give proper attention to these
31326°—Bull. 98—12---- 3

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

other duties. If they were to undertake eases other than those prop
erly coming under the law, or if the law were amended to include
other crafts not now within its scope, it would be absolutely neces
sary to create some other machinery for carrying out its provisions
than the present plan which simply imposes the work required by the
law upon two officials who are appointed for other purposes and who
under any conditions can only give part of their time to this work.
ARBITRATION ACT OF

1888

Before the present law dealing with mediation and arbitration of
railroad disputes was enacted a previous law had been passed and
approved October 1, 1888, providing both for voluntary arbitration
and for what amounted to compulsory investigation in controversies
affecting “railroad and other transportation companies” engaged
in interstate traffic and their employees. This law applied to any
controversy between a railroad or other transportation company en
gaged in interstate commerce and any class of its employees, which
might “hinder, impede, obstruct, interrupt, or affect such transpor
tation of property or passengers.” It thus differs from the present
act which applies only to controversies with those classes of em
ployees engaged in actual train operation. The law of 1888 pro
vided that in the event of such controversy either side might pro
pose in writing to submit the differences to arbitration; and if the
other party to the controversy should accept the proposition each
side should then appoint one arbitrator and these two should select
a third. The three persons thus selected were created a board of
arbitration.
It will be noted that there is no provision in the act of 1888, as in
the Erdman Act, for the appointment of a third arbitrator in the
event of the first two arbitrators’ failure to agree on one. The act
of 1888 provided also that each of the arbitrators appointed by the
respective parties should be “ wholly impartial and disinterested in
respect to ” the difference or controversy concerning which they were
to conduct the arbitration. This act differs from the Erdman Act
in this provision, as the latter act places no limitation on the rela
tion to the controversy of the person who may be selected by either
side as its arbitrator. As indicated in the discussion of arbitration
cases (p. 18), it may be doubted whether such a limitation as pro
vided in the law of 1888 is desirable.
The board of arbitration* once created was given all the power of
administering oaths, subpoenaing witnesses, requiring the production
of papers, etc., that belongs “ to the United States commissioners
appointed by the circuit court of the United States.”
The act of 1888 provided that upon the conclusion of its investiga
tion the decision of the board of arbitration should be publicly an

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

nounced and a copy of it filed with the Commissioner of Labor of
the United States. No provision of any kind was made for enforcing
any award of the board, and the act evidently relied on the force of
public opinion to make effective the decision of the arbitrators. In
this respect the act of 1888 is similar to the Canadian act.
After providing for the arbitration board, as above indicated, the
act of 1888 provided also that in the event of a controversy such as
was covered by the law, the President might select two commis
sioners who, together with the United States Commissioner of Labor,
should “ constitute a temporary commission for the purpose of exam
ining the causes of the controversy, the conditions accompanying,
and the best means for adjusting it.” The report of the commission
was to be transmitted to the President and to the Congress. The
services of such commission might be tendered by the President for
the purpose of settling a controversy “ either upon his own motion
or upon the application of one of the parties to the controversy or
upon the application of the executive of the State.” A commis
sion thus created by the President was given all the power and au
thority given to the board of arbitration with respect to administer
ing oaths, subpoenaing witnesses, compelling their attendance, and
requiring the production of books and papers. The commission’s
decision was to be made public and was “ to advise the respective
parties what, if anything, ought to be done or submitted to by either
or both to adjust the matters in dispute.”
The boards of arbitration provided in the act were created by
joint agreement between the two sides, the two arbitrators were
chosen by the parties to the controversy, and the third arbitrator was
chosen by the first two arbitrators. On the other hand, the commis
sion could be appointed by the President without application from
either side or without regard to the wishes of either side. The mem
bers of the commission, in addition to the Commissioner of Labor,
were chosen by the President without conference with either party
to the controversy or without reference to them. The findings of the
commission, like the findings of the board, were not enforced through
any provision of law, but depended for their acceptance or enforce
ment upon the backing of public opinion, with only this difference:
That in the case of the arbitration board the parties had formally
agreed to the arbitration in advance and were, therefore, morally
bound to accept its findings, while in the case of the commission ap
pointed by the President there was no such obligation.
CHICAGO STRIKE COMMISSION.

The act of 1888, which was repealed by a section of the Erdman
Act of June 1, 1898, was in effect for practically 10 years. At no
time, so far as is known, was any attempt ever made to utilize its

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

arbitration features; and the only instance in which the provisions
for a commission of investigation were utilized was in July, 1894,
when the President created a commission to investigate and report
upon the railroad strike that had grown out of the strike of the em
ployees in the Pullman car shops.
In so far as the law was designed to furnish a means of preventing
strikes or settling strikes that had arisen, the application of its pro
visions in this case was futile. The commission was not appointed
until a month after the strike had begun, and, as a matter of fact,
the strike had practically been lost a week or more before the ap
pointment of the commission. Its report was made over three
months after such appointment and contained no recommendations
as to a basis of settlement for the particular strike in question, since
the conditions of settlement had already been determined months
before by the arbitrament of relative strength. The commission rec
ommended a permanent strike commission with “ duties and powers
of investigation and recommendation as to disputes between railroads
and their employees similar to those vested in the Interstate Com
merce Commission as to rates, etc.,” and further recommended that
“ power be given to the United States courts to compel railroads to
obey the decisions of the commission.” These recommendations
would have resulted in a more drastic and compulsory law than the
one then in effect, but the law actually passed in place of the act of
1888 was less drastic than the earlier act, except in the provision for
the enforcement of awards by the United States courts in cases where
a voluntary arbitration had been agreed upon.
CONGRESSIONAL DISCUSSION OF ERDMAN ACT UPON PASSAGE.

The present law was passed by the Fifty-sixth Congress, and was
approved by the President under date of June 1, 1898. The bill in
one form or another had been before several preceding Congresses,
and the present law is usually referred to as the “ Erdman Act,”
because the original bill was introduced in Congress by Representative
Erdman, of Pennsylvania; but he was not a Member of the Congress
in which the law was enacted.
In the form in which the law was finally enacted, its provisions
were made applicable only to those classes of railroad employees
actually engaged in train operation, i. e., engineers, firemen, con
ductors, brakemen, switchmen, and telegraphers.
Although at the time of its passage by Congress the act had the
support of the organizations representing the classes of employees to
whom it was made applicable, it was regarded with considerable
distrust by many of the representatives of other labor interests, and
some very strong opposition to it was expressed on the floor of both

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

the House and Senate in the debates preceding its passage. It was
felt by a number of those representing the labor movement outside
of the railway-train service that the law was a dangerous innovation
for two reasons: In the first place, it was feared that the power
granted to the courts of equity to enforce the decisions of the boards
of arbitration was too vague and general and might lead to the exer
cise of an oppressive judicial power neither foreseen nor desired by
those advocating the bill. It was also felt that the bill might prove
the entering wedge for a system of compulsory arbitration to which
the representatives of the labor movement were emphatically opposed.
Both these criticisms of the law were explicitly and emphatically
stated on the floor of both the Senate and the House. The entire dis
cussion of the law in the debates preceding its passage centered
around the arbitration provisions of the act, and the possibilities of
the provisions for mediation were little appreciated. The actual
working of the law, however, has failed to justify the fears at that
time expressed.
The provisions for arbitration have been seldom directly invoked
(only four times since the passage of the act), and the courts have
never been called upon to enforce an award. That the provisions for
mediation have proved of much greater importance than the arbi
tration features of the act is not only an unexpected but probably a
fortunate development.
HISTORY OF FIRST ATTEMPT TO UTILIZE ERDMAN ACT.

That the time was not wholly ripe for the passage of such an act
is indicated by the fact that the first effort to utilize its provisions,
made within a year after its passage, resulted not only in a complete
failure, but even in a repudiation of its principles by the leading
railroad companies involved; and by the further fact that for a
period of seven and a half years no other effort was made to invoke
its provisions.
This first effort to utilize the mechanism for conciliation and arbi
tration provided in the statute forms so important a chapter in the
history of the development of methods of maintaining industrial
peace, and the correspondence growing out of this effort brought out
so clearly and concisely some of the views then held concerning the
arbitration of industrial disputes that the matter is given here in
some detail.
This first effort to utilize the provisions of the new statute grew out
of a movement undertaken in September, 1898, by the conductors and
brakemen engaged in switching service in the railroad yards in and
about Pittsburgh to secure an increase in wages and certain changes
in working conditions upon the railroads having a switching service
in what was known as the “ Pittsburgh district.”

BULLETIN OP THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

At that time the rates of pay for conductors and brakemen engaged
in switching operation in the Pittsburgh yards were as follows:

Day conductors----------------------------------------------------------------24 cents
Day brakemen----------------------------------------------------------------- 18 cents
Night conductors-------------------------------------------------------------- 25 cents
Night brakemen----------------------------------------------------------------19 cents

The new rates asked were as follows:

per
per
per
per

hour
hour
hour
hour

Day conductors-------------------------------------------------------------------- $2. 75 per day
Day brakemen_______________________________________________ 2.50 per day
Night conductors----------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 90 per day
Night brakemen_____________________________________________ 2.70 per day

In addition to these rates a 10-hour day was asked for with over
time pro rata for any work performed in excess of 10 hours.1
The rates asked for by the switchmen were stated by them to be
the standard rates “ paid in the yards in Chicago, St. Louis, most of
the yards at Cincinnati, and other yards of importance in that terri
tory and west of Chicago.”
The following roads were involved in this movement for an in
crease in pay and a reduction of hours:
Pennsylvania E. E.
Pennsylvania Lines West of Pittsburgh.
Allegheny Valley Ey.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie E. E.
Pittsburgh & Western E. E.
Union E. E. (including yard employees of Carnegie Steel Co.).
Monongahela Connecting E. E.
Laughlin Iron Co.
Although the employees on the several roads were practically act
ing in concert in this matter, their proposals were presented to each
road separately by the local committees representing the employees
on that road. A number of the smaller roads stated to their com
mittees that they would grant any increases that might be granted
by the larger roads; but as the principal roads involved declined to
grant any increase, no progress was made by the local committees
in their efforts to secure increases.
The switchmen involved were members of the Brotherhood of
Eailroad Trainmen, and after several months of fruitless efforts by
the local committees to secure any settlement of their controversies
the assistance of their national organizations was invoked. In Jan
uary and February, 1899, two of the chief officers of the brotherhood
1 The present ruling rates of pay for conductors and brakemen in switching service in
the Pittsburgh yards are as follow s:
Day conductors-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 cents per hour
Day brakemen-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------34 cents per hour
Night conductors-------------------------------------------------------------------------------39 cents per hour
Night brakemen-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36 cents per hour
Ten hours or less constitute a day’s work, and overtime pro rata is paid for any work
performed in excess of 10 hours.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OE RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

took charge of the matter and held a number of conferences with
the roads involved, but were unable to obtain any substantial con
cessions in the matter of wages and hours- Further action was then
postponed until after the fourth biennial convention of the Brother
hood of Railroad Trainmen, which was to meet in May of that year.
Immediately after the convention the grand master of the trainmen,
as stated by him in his report to the fifth biennial convention in 1901,
“ concluded, after a consultation with prominent members interested,
my associate officers, and the executives of the other organizations
represented in the federation who would become involved in the
trouble, to test the efficiency of the act of Congress, approved June
1, 1898, and commonly known as the ‘ arbitration law.5 * * * 55
As the first step to invoking the provisions of the arbitration law
the grand master of the Brotherhod of Railroad Trainmen addressed
the following letter to the secretary of the Interstate Commerce
Commission:
M ay 29, 1899.
Hon. E. A. M oseley,
Secretary Interstate Commerce Commission,
’Washington, D. C.
D ear S ir : A serious situation presents itself to the brotherhood,
as well as to a number of railways involved. Through our organiza
tion the men employed in yard service on the different railway lines
in one of the large switching centers have asked for an adjustment
of their wages and hours of labor. No relief has been given, and we
have practically exhausted every effort to settle the matter. The men
are dissatisfied and will not be put off in this way. Their claims are
just and reasonable. I desire to take advantage of the arbitration
act, and enlist the offices of the chairman of the Interstate Commerce
Commission and the Commissioner of Labor in the hope of settling
this matter amicably. Will you kindly communicate my wish to
these gentlemen and have them fix a time when I can meet them at
Washington for the purpose of formally presenting the situation to
them.
An early consideration of, and reply to, the foregoing will greatly
oblige.

Tom-s, truly,

p H. Moebismy,

Grand Master Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
After some informal discussion with the mediators designated in
the arbitration law, the grand master of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen addressed to them the following formal application for
mediation:
J une 21, 1899.
Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission.
Hon. Carroll D. W right,
Commissioner of Labor, "Washington, D. C.
G entlemen : During the month of September, 1898, the conductors
and brakemen employed in the several railway yards (excepting the

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

Baltimore & Ohio) in the Pittsburgh, Pa., switching district, through
regularly appointed committees of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen, employees of the respective lines, presented to the officials
of the companies a scale of wages and hours which they asked to be
put into force, requesting that the same be considered and answer made
thereto within 30 days. The roads to which the schedules were pre
sented are as follows: Pennsylvania Railroad; Pittsburgh, Cincin
nati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway; Allegheny Valley Railway;
Pittsburgh & Western Railway; Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railway;
Union Railway; Laughlin & Co. (Ltd.); Monongahela Connecting
Railway; and Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway.
The wage scale asked for was uniformly as follows: Day con
ductors, $2.75 per day; night conductors, $2.90 per day; day brakemen, $2.50 per day; night brakemen, $2.70 per day; 10 hours or less
to constitute a day’s work; overtime after 10 hours to be paid for at
one-tenth the above rate per hour.
In addition to the wage scale the employees of each road asked for
the adoption of certain rules guaranteeing their rights in the service,
a fair hearing when dismissed for any alleged offense, etc. The
rates as above practically represent what is known as “ standard pay ”
in the switching service, as paid in the yards of Chicago and St.
Louis, and by some of the lines at Cincinnati, Detroit, and Columbus,
and in most of the switching yards of any prominence west of
Chicago.
The present Pittsburgh switching scale is as follows: Day con
ductors, 24 cents per hour; day brakemen, 18 cents per hour; night
conductors, 25 cents per hour; night brakemen, 19 cents per hour.
The Pittsburgh scale is less than paid at the points before men
tioned, as well as being less than is paid in most of the yards at
Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Ashtabula, Youngstown, and Indian
apolis, and in many of the yards of lesser importance in the territory
between Pittsburgh and Chicago. I would also mention that east of
Pittsburgh the New York, New Haven & Hudson River Railroad has
lately put into effect an eight-hour day system at much higher rates
per hour than the Pittsburgh scale.
The committees called on their superintendents at the end of 30
days for answers to their requests and the propositions were either
denied outright or they were told the company could do nothing in
the matter, or that they would have to go to the higher officials of the
road. This latter was done in each and every instance, and the high
est officer in charge of operation on each line was approached by a
committee of the men, as well as by an officer representing the brother
hood, who, in accordance with the usual practice in such cases,
renewed every honorable effort to settle the grievances. I desire to
state in this connection that excepting in one instance, that of the
Pennsylvania lines west of Pittsburgh, wherein Mr. Loree, general
manager, declined to meet the representative of the brotherhood, both
the committees and .the officers of the organization were courteously
met by the managements, who, after considering the matter, declined
to grant the increase of wages, most of them on the grounds that if
they did it others would have to do it, some of them assigning as a

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

reason that their property was not paying sufficiently well to permit
the advance, while others gave no definite reason other than they
would not concede the advance. In one or two instances the com
mittees were informed that certain companies would pay the proposed
scale if others would pay it.
This brief statement of facts is sufficient to show that the efforts
of these employees to secure equal wages paid to* other employees
in the switching service similarly situated have been orderly, free
from agitation, and characteristic of the methods which we believe
should obtain in the intelligent labor movement of our country. That
their position is a reasonable one we believe will be substantiated on
investigation. Heretofore the efforts of the men employed in the
switching service in large yards to secure what is generally accepted
as the standard wage have been largely attended by agitation and
strikes, greatly injuring the earnings or the companies as well as of
the men involved, and, as you are probably aware, thereatening at the
time the peace and good order of the communities. We believe that
the same results can be obtained by conservative methods and the
reasoning of the differences as between the employees and their em
ployers. All this we have endeavored to do and have failed. We
have made repeated efforts to secure a joint conference between com
mittees of the employees and representatives of the different railway
interests at Pittsburgh and have failed. The men are now left the
alternative of yielding their requests or pressing the matter further,
in accordance with the rights given them under our organization,
viz, to strike. I have been repeatedly requested by the men involved
to take a vote on the proposition to strike in support of their griev
ances ; but knowing how they feel in the matter, both from personal
observation and knowledge, as well as the communications that come
to my office from the district, and the report of one of my associate
officers who has had much to do with the matter, I know that the
result will be almost unanimous in favor of a strike, and my expe
rience suggests to me that men once having taken a position in a
matter of this kind, after carefully weighing the consequences of their
proposed action, are much more difficult to reason with toward an
amicable adjustment of affairs than if the question of strike had not
been submitted to them and agreed to by them. There are over 1,000
men in the switching service in the Pittsburgh district, and the
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is fairly representative of them.
This number, as well as the large number of members of the brother
hood in the train service on each of the lines before mentioned, would
become involved in case of a strike.
On account of the foregoing reasons and for other reasons, I have
concluded that the controversy is sufficiently serious to warrant ask
ing your intervention, as permitted by section 2 of the act of Con
gress approved June 1, 1898, entitled “An act concerning carriers
engaged in interstate commerce and their employees.” I therefore
request you on behalf of the employees in the switching service on
the lines referred to in Pittsburgh and vicinity, who, as before stated,
are fairly represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, of
which organization I am the executive officer, to use your good offices

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

with the officials of the said companies to the end that a reasonable
adjustment of the complaints of such employees may be effected.
I have the honor to be,
Very truly, yours,
(Signed)
P. H . M orrissey,
Grand Master Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
Under date of July 1 the chairman of the Interstate Commerce
Commission and the Commissioner of Labor, the officials designated
as mediators in the law, addressed a joint letter to the representatives
of each of the railroads involved and inclosed with it a copy of the
above letter to the grand master of the trainmen. The following
replies were received from the railroads in question:
----------R ailroad Co.,
O ffice of the P resident,
-------- , July 15, 1899.
Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission.
Hon. Carroll D. W right,
Commissioner of Labor, 'Washington, D. C.
G entlem en : I have given the attention it justly commands to your
letter of July 1, transmitting a copy of an application to you to
undertake the amicable settlement of a controversy alleged to exist
between th e-------- Railroad Co. and certain of its employees in the
so-called “ switching district” of Pittsburgh, made by Mr. P. H.
Morrissey, grand master of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
Although this application of Mr. Morrissey’s professes to be made
under the act of Congress approved June 1, 1898, it is not a request
emanating from “ either party to the controversy ” existing or alleged
to exist, as required by said act. I feel it incumbent upon me, how
ever, in compliance with your request, to make the following state
ment of the position of th e-------- Railroad Co.
During the present year, representatives of the-------- Railroad Co.
and of the yardmen in its service in the Pittsburgh district met on
several occasions and discussed questions relating to the wages of
the latter, their hours of service, and other incidental matters. I
believe that every question thus discussed, excepting that of wages,
was settled to the satisfaction of all parties. Saving through Sir.
Morrissey’s application, I have not been advised that because of any
difference of opinion on this remaining question a strike of the yard
men is threatened or impending; nor do I believe that any ground
exists for a controversy which shall seriously threaten to interrupt
our business as a carrier, especially as the wages paid our employees
in the Pittsburgh switching district compare favorably with those
paid to men engaged in other pursuits requiring a like amount of
ability and intelligence.
During the last 25 years the rates paid by our shippers and the
dividends paid to our shareholders * * * have been reduced
practically one-half. During the same period the dividends paid to
the shareholders * * * have been scant and exceptional.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OE RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

Although we have frequently advanced the wages paid to our
employees during that time, we have never made a reduction. In all
other pursuits the wages of employees have been subject to severe
fluctuations and have been so reduced at times as barely to provide
for their actual living expenses.
At the present time we are not participants in the general advance
of prices which has occurred. On the contrary, we have suffered
thereby, inasmuch as we have been compelled to pay advanced prices
for our supplies and have thus had our expenses considerably in
creased. As compared with the rates in 1898 (up to which time they
had been constantly lowering) the pre'sent prevailing freight rates
are approximately 10 per cent lower.
Mr. Morrissey alludes to the fact that the wages paid for switch
ing services at Pittsburgh are lower than those paid by the company
for such service at Chicago. At. the latter point the wages for
switching service are disproportionate as compared with those there
paid for other services. At Pittsburgh the wages we are now paying
for such switching service are fairly proportionate to those paid for
the service there rendered by our other employees. It is not neces
sary here to consider the reason for the disproportionately high
wages for switching service paid at Chicago; but we are unwilling
to extend this disproportion to other points of our system. In this
connection it may not be amiss to state that, through the adoption
within the last few years of safety appliances, the risks formerly
attending the performances of switching duties have been greatly
reduced.
During the conferences with our employees, to which I have
alluded, the question of advance in wages to be paid for switching
services at Pittsburgh was thoroughly considered by the officers of
this company. They were entirely satisfied with the fullness and
fairness of the wages there paid for that particular service, and felt
that it would not be proper to make an increase which would bring
about a disproportion in the East similar to that existing at Chicago.
At that time they felt, and they and I now feel, that in justice to
those we represent, and to the public, we can make no advance upon
the present switching rates.
Entertaining the very high respect I do for yourselves, and for the
oflices you occupy, I would, in many cases, feel strongly moved to
accept your mediation; but in the present case, concerning, as it does,
purely a question of amount of wages to be paid, which has been so
thoroughly considered, I feel convinced that such mediation could
only bring us to the alternative suggested by the act, viz, the submis
sion of the same to the arbitration of a board to be composed of three
persons.
The act of June 1,1898, provides that in case of an award by these
three persons both parties shall be bound, but “ that no employee
shall be compelled to render personal services without his consent.”
Of course this proviso is proper, because no man should be compelled
to work against his will, but necessarily an arbitration concerning
wages which binds one party and not the other is not of the character
the world regards as fair.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

I do not desire, however, to put upon this ground my objection to
the arbitration in the present matter.
The effect of this law, if its provisions be accepted in this case by
the carrier, seems to be this: That the carrier, while continuing to be
responsible for the discharge of its duties to the public, likewise to
its creditors and stockholders, abdicates its vital prerogative of
determining what it can afford to pay its employees for their services,
and transfers that prerogative to a special transient committee of
three arbitrators, and, in default of errors of law apparent in the
proceedings, binds itself to the judgment which may be entered on
the award of these arbitrators.
The question of what compensation shall be paid to its employees
is of such grave importance that the officers o f -------- Railroad do
not feel that they can in any manner relinquish their duty or right
to determine it, according to their own best judgment, nor by any
act of their own subject the interests which are intrusted to them to
the judgment of any other tribunal than themselves. Moreover, I
am advised that it would not be legally competent for them to permit
the settlement of such a question by anybody other than by them
selves, acting in conjunction with their employees.
Very respectfully, yours,
President.
R ailway Co.,
— , July H, 1899.
Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
' Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission.
Hon. Carroll D. W right,
: Commissioner of Labor, 'Washington, D. C.
G entlemen : Yours of the first, covering a letter addressed to you
by Mr. P. H. Morrissey, grand master of the Brotherhood of Rail
road Trainmen, is before me.
I beg to say in reply that I am not advised of any such conditions
existing between this company and switchmen in its employ at Pitts
burgh as can be construed into a controversy under the act of Con
gress referred to in your communication.
The proper officer of this company had, early in this year, appli
cation from certain of its employees as to wages and certain police
regulations governing the working of the road.
These last matters, I understand, were satisfactorily adjusted, and
the wage question carefully considered, with the conclusion that the
company could not consent to any increase;,that the wages paid were
fair and equable; that the company had no time in years past (in
cluding eight years from May 1, 1884, when the company was in
default on its obligations, under mortgages and floating debt) made
any reduction in the wages paid the switchmen, or any others in the
service, but had continued to pay the scale of wages in the Pittsburgh
district.
This company has no earning^ beyond the actual requirements for
its operation and fixed charges, and therefore can not undertake the

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OE RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

burden of increased expenses that would be entailed in granting the
advance in wages to switchmen as mentioned in Mr. Morrissey’s letter.
Very truly, yours,
President.
R ailroad Co.,
-----, July 20,1899.
Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission.
Hon. Carroll D. W right,
Commissioner of Labor, 'Washington, D. C.
G entlemen : Your letter of the 1st instant, with copy of applica
tion of Mr. P. H. Morrissey, grand master Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen, has been received and carefully considered.
In answer to your request that 44the positions of this company
respecting the controversy may be disclosed ” to you, I beg to submit
the following:
The application of Mr. Morrissey as chief executive of the brother
hood, made, as he says, under the act of Congress of June 1, 1898,
asks that you intervene for the purpose of effecting an adjustment
of complaints of employees and of a controversy said to be pending
between the railroad company and some of its employees at Pitts
burgh, to wit: Yard conductors and switchmen, in relation to their
compensation.
At the present time the company can not properly or justly increase
the wages of its switchmen. The expenses of the company have
been and are largely increased by expenditure made for the improve
ment of its tracks and equipment, and these expenses are at present’
augmented by advances in price of materials and supplies; while on
the other hand, the net receipts of the company are diminished by
reason of the decrease in transportation rates. Included in these
expenses are large expenditures for safety appliances, which have
greatly diminished the dangers incident to the labor and duties per
formed by switchmen, and the improvements in track and equipment’
also contribute in this direction.
The company has for years past kept up the rates of compensation
of its employees, when by reason of depression of business and the
other conditions above stated, it might with propriety have made a
reduction, but it has deemed it best for all concerned so far as prac
ticable to maintain the stability of the rates of compensation paid to
its employees.
Mr. Morrissey refers to the fact that wages paid for switching
service in Pittsburgh are lower than at Chicago and some other
places. While it may be true that circumstances and conditions at
Chicago and elsewhere are such as to warrant or require the payment’
of higher wages for such service than are paid at Pittsburgh, it does
not follow that the wages are too low at Pittsburgh any more than it
would follow that they are too high because they are more than paid
for like service at some other points.
This company, through its proper officers and representatives, has,
within the past year, on several occasions conferred with its em

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

ployees upon various matters relating to their service and compen
sation, and has never refused to confer with them or their committees
in relation to any subject matter when requested.
The officers of this company have considered the question whether
any increase in the wages of switchmen at Pittsburgh ought to be
made, and after full and careful examination of the subject were
and still are of the opinion that the wages now paid are full and
adequate compensation for the services rendered, and that in justice
to the company and to other employees and to all interests concerned
no increase should be made.
The question as to the amount of compensation the company shall
pay its employees involves the consideration of very many matters
with which the officers of the company are familiar, and it is their
duty after full conference with and due regard for the rights of
employees to determine the question; and while they have the highest
respect for you and confidence in your ability and impartiality, yet
in this matter they feel that they ought not and can not rightfully
relinquish their duty or delegate their power to determine that
question.
Very respectfully, yours,
-------- , -------- ,
President.
----------R ailway Co.,
--------, July 17, 1899.
Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission.
Hon. Carroll. D. W right,
Commissioner of Labor, 'Washington) D. C.
G entlemen : I beg to acknowledge your favor of July 1, requesting
me to make written answer to the statements contained in the appli
cation presented to you by P. H. Morrissey, of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Trainmen, copy of which you inclose.
I beg to say in reply thereto that I was called upon sometime ago
by a committee of the Railroad Trainmen employed on the line of
th e -------- Railway, and they made request for an increase in the
compensation for services paid day conductors, day brakemen, night
conductors, and night brakemen employed in the various yards of
this company.
After going over the subject very fully with the committee, I had
to decline to make the concessions asked for by them, owing to the
fact that the revenues of the company at this time did not warrant
the payment of the advance asked for by the representatives of the
organization. I was subsequently called upon by another committee,
which was accompanied by Second Vice President Fitzpatrick, of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and went over the ground again
fully with this committee, and I then stated to them that owing to
the very low rates prevailing I did not see my way clear to meet the
views of the railroad trainmen’s representatives, or those of the vice
president of the organization; that in 1892 a scale of wages was
adopted by the company and its employees engaged in all the branches
of its train service, namely: Conductors, engineers, brakemen, etc.,
which was agreed to by all the orders representing labor organiza

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

tions at that time employed in the service; since that time the com
pany has passed through a period of serious depression, with a con
stant reduction of its rates, and that while other labor throughout
the country suffered by having its wages reduced, the employees
of the -------- Eailway were not asked to meet the depressed
conditions, and the wages fixed at a time of great prosperity
throughout the country were maintained and paid, and have been
paid up to this day; that while the holders of the securities of the
company have been compelled to forego the interest due on their
mortgages, and make great sacrifices, the train labor had not in any
way been asked to share in the same; that the existing rates for the
transportation of commodities to-day are lower than they have ever
been in the history of the road, and while the tonnage has increased
in volume, the steady reduction of rates has required large expendi
tures for improvements, and necessitated the greatest economy in
the management to enable the company to maintain its position as a
competitor and give employment to its employees, and under the
conditions named I stated it was entirely impracticable to consider
an advance of wages at the present time, and further, that the organi
zations, parties to the agreement made for the tram labor in 1892,
were not demanding any increase of wages, and that under the cir
cumstances I could not increase the compensation of the employees
who were members of the Eailroad Trainmen’s Association without
discriminating against the members of the other organizations who
were at the time parties to the agreement mentioned above.
The responsibility for the management of the property has been
imposed upon me personally by the Circuit Court of the United States
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and as I understand it,
it is my duty to manage the property with respect to the rights of
all persons interested in it as well as with respect to any just claims
or demands of my employees. I have no authority to delegate the
exercise of this responsibility to anyone else, either by way of medi
ation or arbitration. I am perfectly satisfied that my refusal of the
demands of the men referred to was based upon just and reasonable
grounds. If, however, they are not satisfied with my action, there is
no difficulty in having the matter, upon their application, submitted
to and reviewed by the circuit court of the United States under
whose authority I am acting.
Eespectfully,
-------------------,
Receiver.
----------E ailroad Co.,
July 1899.
Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission.
Hon. Carroll D. W right,
Commissioner of Labor, 'Washington,, D. C.
G entlemen : I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 1,
1899, inclosing coj>y of communication from Mr. P. H. Morrissey in
relation to the amicable settlement of a controversy alleged to exist
between th e -------- Eailroad Co. and certain of its employees in
pursuance of the act of Congress approved June 1, 1898.

BULLETIN OF THE BUKEAU OF LABOR.

In answer thereto I desire to say that no special controversy exists
between this company and any of its employees, but it is true that a
demand has been made upon railroad companies in the Pittsburgh
district, including th e-------- Co., by certain of their employees, for
an increase of wages substantially as set forth in his letter, which
demand the several companies, including th e -------- Railroad Co.,
have refused to grant.
T he-------- Railroad is a short line of road in the vicinity of the
city of Pittsburgh connecting with several of the main lines of rail
road and performing a belt-line service. Its main business is the
switching of cars. * * * It employs in this switching service 19
regular and 5 extra conductors and 42 regular and 20 extra brakemen.
It has 13 locomotives in use and employs 21 engineers and 21 firemen.
It will be apparent that the-------- Railroad Co. is a small factor in
the general situation and its rates of pay are naturally affected by,
and largely based upon, those paid by the main line railroads with
which it connects. The employees of th e-------- Railroad Co. have
made no demands other than as stated—the general demand made
upon all the roads named in Mr. Morrissey’s letter. They have pre
sented no other grievance, and, so far as 1 can learn, their relations
with the company are of the most amicable nature.
Whatever may be ultimately decided either by agreement or by
mediation or arbitration, as suggested by Mr. Morrissey, as the proper
scale of wages to be paid by the other Pittsburgh railroads for switch
ing service will undoubtedly be the basis for adjustment of the wages
to be paid for similar service by this company, and I am convinced
that this company and its employees can quickly and amicably adjust
any question as to wages, as soon as settled by the main railroads. For
this reason I respectfully suggest that it is unnecessary that this com
pany take part in any proceedings, as requested by Mr. Morrissey, and
that this company will await the settlement of a general rate of wages
by the principal roads and their employees.
I feel; too, that it is important that the friendly relations now ex
isting between this company and its employees should not be im
periled by either side becoming active parties to the controversy.
Yours, respectfully,
President.
R ailroad Co.,
-----July 13,, 1899.
Hon. M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman,, Interstate Commerce Commission,,
*Washington,, D. C.
D ear S ir : Replying to your valued favor of July 1, would advise
that, after careful consideration, we do not think that this company
is governed by the act of Congress referred to therein. T he-------Railroad is located entirely within the limits of the city of Pitts
burgh, and while it connects with other railroads, still it performs
merely a switching service between the manufactories on its lines of
said railroads.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

We have, however, paid the same wages as the larger railroads for
like service.
------------------ ,
Yours, respectfully,
General Manager.
After these replies had been received and the attitude of the rail
road companies had been made known to the head of the Brother
hood of Railroad Trainmen, that official came on to Washington and
urged the mediators to make a further effort to have the companies
take up the controversy under the provisions of the act of June 1,
1898. This effort was made through a personal interview between
one of the mediators and a representative of the principal road con
cerned, but without success; and later the following formal communi
cation was addressed to the grand master of the trainmen:
.I nterstate Commerce C ommission ,

Washington, August 4 ,1899,
Mr. P. H. M orrissey,
Grand Master Brotherhood, of Railroad Trainmen,
Peoria, III.
D ear S ir : Y ou are aware that copies of your application to the
undersigned, under date of July 1, 1899, made in pursuance of the
act of Congress approved June 1, 1898, were mailed to the presidents
of the roads named therein; and you have been furnished with copies
of the answers which they severally submitted in compliance with our
request.
In addition to the facts thus presented, we have heard the oral
statements made by you on behalf of the employees you represent,
and one of us has had a personal interview with the first vice presi
dent of th e-------- Railroad Co., who explained at some length the
reasons which influenced that company to take the position disclosed
by its answer. While it is not within our province, under the cir
cumstances of this case, to express any opinion as to the merits of the
controversy, the facts brought to our attention indicate a situation
of such gravity as to require the most careful consideration by the
executive officers of the interested roads.
You will see from the answers of the companies that our offer of
mediation has been declined. The friendly offices tendered by us in
the manner and for the purposes contemplated by law have not been
accepted. While our proffer of service has been treated with respect
and courtesy, the answers and attitude of the roads are a declination
of our official assistance in settling the difficulty which admittedly
exists.
There was plainly no occasion for us to make further effort to in
duce the companies to submit the matter to arbitration, for their
answers have anticipated that effort by an explicit and positive re
fusal to arbitrate the controversy. We believe that refusal is final,
and are convinced that no influence on our part can change their
determination in that regard.
Under these circumstances it is clear that our duty in the premises
has been discharged, and it only remains for us to inform you that
31326°—Bull. 98—12-----1

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

our efforts have been unsuccessful. The employees represented by
you have sought redress for the grievance asserted by them in the
manner provided by the act of Congress. It is not their fault, and
we believe it is not ours, that nothing has been accomplished.
Yours, very truly,
M artin A. K napp ,
Chairman, Interstate Commerce Commission.
Carroll D. W right,
Commissioner of Labor.
The declination of the representatives of the principal roads to
take the controversy up under the Erdman Act ended the efforts
at mediation, but the employees did not drop the agitation for in
creased wages. In the next few months continued efforts to secure
the increase in wages were made by the officers of the trainmen’s
organization through direct negotiations with the roads involved
and also through the officers of representatives of the other train
organizations. Upon the failure of these efforts to secure any part
of their demands, a strike vote was taken on all of the roads con
cerned in the controversy, and shortly thereafter an increase in wages
was granted by the roads and the controversy thus terminated.
SECOND CASE UNDER THE ACT.

After the failure of this attempt to utilize the provisions of the
law on the part of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen in June,
1899, no further effort was made to invoke the provisions either as
to mediation or arbitration until the latter part of December, 1906.
In that month a controversy that had arisen on the Southern Pacific
Railway involving the locomotive firemen on the lines between El
Paso and New Orleans reached a point where a strike was ordered
to become effective at 5 o’clock on December 23. After the strike had
been ordered, and only the day before it had actually become effective,
the company invoked the provisions of the Erdman Act in a formal
application for mediation and requested the mediators, in conform
ity with the provisions of the law, to place themselves in communi
cation with the other parties to the controversy in an endeavor to
bring about an amicable adjustment.
The situation had, however, reached a point where it was impos
sible to prevent the inauguration of a strike the following day, but
as the firemen had expressed a willingness to conduct negotiations
through the mediators, one of the mediators started at once for Hous
ton, Tex., and negotiations were begun there looking to a termina
tion of the strike and the resumption of former relations between
the parties to the controversy.
The case proved a particularly difficult one, involving a question
of jurisdiction between different train organizations, and it became

MEDIATION AND ABBITBATION OP BAILWAY LABOB DISPUTES.

necessary for the other mediator to go to Chicago and conduct nego
tiations there between the representatives of the organizations whose
interests were concerned.
The matter was finally adjusted in an agreement to submit the
question in dispute to arbitration under the provisions of the law on
a basis agreed to by all parties concerned and in conformity with
proposals framed by the mediators.
Since that date, as the table on page 44 shows, the provisions of
the act have been invoked with increasing frequency. Since 1906
there has been no case of a serious strike or of danger of a serious
strike on the part of those classes of employees to whom this law is
made applicable in which the provisions of this law have not been
invoked.

BULLETIN OF THE BUBEAU OF LABOB,
Table I.—CASES OF MEDIATION AND AKBITBATION UNDER

Application.
Case
No.

Date
received.

1 June 23,1899
2 Dec. 22,1906
3 Feb. 19,1907

Mar. 28,1907

5 Apr. 24,1907

Made by-

Railroads involved.
Name.

Approxi
mate
mileage.

'Pennsylvania R. R ......................................
Pennsylvania Lines West of Pittsburgh..
Allegheny Valley R y...................................
Pittsburgh & Western R. R .......................
Employees
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R..................... 0)
Union R. R...................................................
Monongahela Connecting R. R ...................
LaughUn Iron Co.........................................
Southern Pacific (Atlantic System)
Company
2,350
Company and employees Southern Pacific (Pacific System).
5,800
jointly.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry.............
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry (Coast
Lines).
Canadian Northern R y...............................
Canadian Pacific Ry. (west of Fort Wil
liam).
Chicago & Alton R. R .................................
Chicago & North Western R y.....................
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R .........
Chicago Great Western Ry.........................
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R y...........
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha
Ry. & Southern Ry.............................
Colorado
Duluth, Missabe & Northern Ry...............
El Paso & Southwestern System...............
Fort Worth & Denver City R y...............'..
Great Northern R y......................................
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R y...................
Houston East & West Texas R y...............
Houston & Texas Central R. R ................. 101,500
Company,
Illinois Central R. R ....................................
International & Great Northern R. R .......
Kansas City Southern Ry...........................
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry.....................
Missouri Pacific System...............................
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry
Northern Pacific R y....................................
Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co...................
Oregon Short Line R. R .............................
Rock Island Lines.......................................
St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. System..
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. System..........
San Antonio & Aransas Pass R y...............
San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R ..
Southern Pacific (Atlantic System)...........
Southern Pacific (Pacific System).............
Texas & Pacific R y......................................
Union Pacific R. R ......................................
Wisconsin Central R y..................................
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R ...............
.do.

6 Aug. 3,1907 .......do.
7 Sept. 17,1907 .......do.
.do.
8 Nov. 20,1907

Denver & Rio Grande R. R. System

2,550

Colorado & Southern Ry.
Missouri Pacific System..
.do

1,100
6,350
6,350

1 Not reported.
2 Mediation declined by the companies; see p. 11.
8 The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, while primarily an organization of firemen,
also includes in its membership hostlers and a considerable number of engineers.
4 There were no mediation proceedings in this case, as the parties to the controversy agreed upon an
arbitration under the provisions of the act without attempting mediation. For further particulars see
Table II, p. 56.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

THE ERDMAN ACT, JUNE 1, 1898, TO DECEMBER 81,1911.
Employees involved.
Class.

Date
mediation
Ap
proxi
conferences
mate Represented by—
began.
num
ber.

Switchmen..
/Firemen and | 600
\ enginemen.3
Telegraphers 1,250

/Brotherhood of Rail\ road Trainmen.

Date
Place of
mediation
mediation Settled by— agreement
conferences.
was reached.

(*)

<*)

(Brotherhood of Loco27,1906 Houston, Tex. <(Mediation
< motive Firemen lDec.
and arbi- jjan. 7,1907
l and Enginemen. [Jan. 5,1907 Chicago, 111.... [ tration.
Order of Railroad
Arbitration.
0)
<4)
(0
Telegraphers.

(Order of Railway
/Conductors.. }42,500 1 Conductors.
| Brotherhood of Rail- jMar.30,1907 Chicago, 111.... Mediation... Apr. 4,1907
\Trainmen...
{ road Trainmen.

(Order of Railway
Conductors.
(Conductors..
•{Trainmen.... | 1,200 • B rotherhood of Rail •May 5,1907 Denver, Colo.. Mediation... May 17,1907
road Trainmen,
ISwitchmen..
.do......................
Trainmen.... 200 .......do.......................
(6) Mo. Mediation... Oct. (5)1,1907
Engineers.... 1,150 Brotherhood of Loco Sept.(5)20,1907 St. Louis,
motive Engineers.
Firemen and 1,300 Brotherhood of Loco Nov.26,1907 .......do............. .......do.......... Nov. 27,1907
motive Firemen
enginemen.3
and Enginemen.
* In this case a strike of switchmen in the yards of the Colorado & Southern Ry. Co. occurred in the first
place. The switchmen involved were members of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and two weeks
after the strike had begun the trainmen were called out in support of the strike of the switchmen. When
the strike of the trainmen had been ordered the company applied for the mediation of the case so far as it
concerned the trainmen. Before a reply had been received the trainmen had gone on strike. The media
tors did not meet either orthe parties, but were in telegraphic communication with them for a day or more,
and at the expiration of this time the parties agreed to an arbitration outside of the provisions of the
Erdman Act.

BULLETIN OP THE BUREAU OP LABOR,
Table I.—CASES OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION UNDER

Railroads involved.

Application.
Case
No.

Date
received.

Name.

Made by—

9 Feb. 25,1908 Company

Southern By.

11 Mar. 2,1908

.do.

Atlanta & West Point R. R .......................
Atlantic Coast Line R. R ............................
Georgia R. R ................................................
Louisville & Nashville R. R .......................
Mobile & Ohio R. R ....................................
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis R y...
Western Ry. of Alabama............................
Alabama Great Southern R. R...................
Cincinnati, New Orleans &Texas Pacific Ry
Georgia Southern & Florida Ry.................

12 Mar. 14,1908

.do.

Chicago Great Western Ry.

10 Feb. 27,1908 Employees].

13 July 9,1908 Company and employees Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry.
jointly.
14 Nov. 19,1908

.do.

15 Nov. 23,1908 Employees

Approxi
mate
mileage.

7,000

11,500
1,050

1,350

8,000

Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry.

3,050

Pennsylvania Lines West of Pittsburgh...

2,900

1 The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, while primarily an organization of firemen
also indudes in its membership hostlers and a considerable number of engineers.
* For explanation of inclusion of these employees, see p. 25.
* Application was made and mediation proceedings were deferred by agreement pending settlement of
controversy in case 9. See pp. 22-25.
4 The application for mediation in the Chicago Great Western case, signed jointly by the representatives
of the engineers, firemen, conductors, trainmen, and switchmen, was received during the mediation pro
ceedings with the Southern Railway. The mediators wired the receivers asking that the matters beleft
in abeyance until the negotiations growing out of the application in the cases immediately preceding

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

THE ERDMAN ACT, JUNE 1, 1898, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911—Continued.
Employees involved.
Class.

Date
Ap
mediation
proxi
conferences
mate Represented by—
began.
number.

Date
Place of
mediation
mediation Settled by— agreement
conferences.
was reached.

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.
Brotherhood of Loco[Engineers...
motive Firemen
Firemen and
and Enginemen.
enginemen.1
Order
of Railway
Conductors.. 5,350 Conductors.
Trainmen__
Brotherhood
of Rail
Switchmen..
road Trainmen.
Mediation... Apr. 1,1908
Telegraphers
__ do........................ Mar. 10,1908 Washington,
D. C.
Order of Railroad
, Telegraphers.
(Machinists...
Blacksmiths.
Boiler makCarmen....... ■ (2)
Sheet metal
workers.
Maintenance
of way em
ployees.
Engineers... 2,350 Brotherhood of Lo
comotive Engineers.
Engineers__
[Engineers...

<*>

(3)

(*)

(s>

300 .......do.......................
<*)
(*)
(*)
(*>
Brotherhood of Lo
comotive Engi
neers.
Brotherhood of Lo
Firemen and
comotive
Firemen
e n g in e and Enginemen.
men.i
1,500 Order
<«>
<«>
<«>
(4)
of
Railway
Conductors..
Conductors.
Brotherhood
of
Rail
Trainmen...
road Trainmen.
Switchmen’s Union
(Switchmen..
of N orth America.
111...
of Railroad /July 29,1908 <(Chicago,
Telegraphers 1,300 /Order
Telegraphers.
(Aug. 12,1908 lWashington, ^Mediation... Aug. 15,1908
[Engineers...
Brotherhood of Lo
comotive Engi
neers.
Brotherhood of Lo
Firemen and
comotive Firemen
e n g in e men.1
3,300 and Enginemen. -Dec. 17,1908 Washingto n , Mediation... Jan. 1,1909
Order of Railway
Conductors..
D. C.
Conductors.
Trainmen...
Brotherhood of Rail
road Trainmen.
(Switchmen..
Engineers... J 2,150 Brotherhood of Lo Nov.30,1908 .......do.............. .......do.......... Dec. 4,1008
comotive Engi
neers.
(cases 9,10, and 11) were concluded, and the receivers replied, accepting the offer of mediation and agreeing
to let the controversy remain in statu quo until such time as it could be taken up by mediation. The
employees* committee thereupon returned home to await the convenience of the mediators. The con
troversy had arisen over a new schedule which the receivers had proposed putting into effect in place of
the existing schedule, some of which changes the men considered would work a reduction in their earnings.
Following the settlement of the Southern Ry. case and before any mediation proceedings were begun, the
receivers notified the mediators that they had withdrawn the proposed schedule and had notified the
employees, thus disposing of the case.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

Table I.—CASES OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION UNDER

Railroads involved.

Application.
Case
No.

Date
received.

Made by—

Name.

Approxi
mate
mileage.

16 Feb. 19,1909 Employees
do.
17 Feb. 26,1909
18 Mar. 1,1909
do.

Pennsylvania R. R. (lines east of Pitts
burgh).
El Paso & Southwestern System...............
Pennsylvania Lines (east and west)..........

5,300
900
8,200

19 Mar. 12,1909 Company.

Texas & Pacific Ry

1,900

May 22,1909

do.

21 July 15,1909 Employees

Georgia R. R

Ion & Broad Top Mountain R. R,

300

El Paso & Southwestern System...............
900
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R .........
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry............
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha
Ry.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry............
Chicago Great Western Ry.........................
Great Northern R y......................................
23 Nov. 24,1909 Company and employees Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie 13,000
Ry.
Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R....................
Minneapolis Ry. Transfer Co......................
Minnesota Transfer Ry................................
Northern Pacific Ry....................................
St. Paul Bridge & Terminal Ry.................
St. Paul Union Depot Co....................;___
Illinois Central R. K............................. ..
Indianapolis Southern R. R.................
24 Dec. 8,1909
do.
6,150
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R...............
Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. (Chicago
smelting district).
Chicago Great Western Ry. (system ex
cept St. Paul & Minneapolis).
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. (system
except Inver Grove).
Chicago Terminal Transfer R. R ................ 14,450
do.
25 Jan. 6,1910
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry.
(specified yards).
Michigan Central R. R. (west of Detroit
River).
Pere Marquette R. R ...................................
Wisconsin Central Ry. (Chicago switching
district).
do.
26 Jan. 8,1910
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis 2,300
Ry.
27 Jan. 22,1910
do.
Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern R. R,
900
1 In this case mediation conferences were actually begun, but the representatives of the road maintained
that no condition had arisen threatening an interruption to traffic and that the conditions presumed by the
law did not therefore exist. The conference developed the fact that no strike vote had been taken and that
the controversy, as a matter of fact, had not reached the stage contemplated by the law in which there
was any serious danger of interruption to traffic. The mediation proceedings were therefore dropped.
2 In this case the mediators wired the road notifying it of the receipt of the application for mediation,
and the manager of the road replied that there was no strike threatened on the road and therefore no occa
sion for invoking the provisions of the Federal act. The mediators wired the representatives of the men
of the reply made by the company and no further action was taken.
8 The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, while primarily an organization of firemen,
also includes in its membership hostlers and a considerable number of engineers.
* In this case, upon receipt of the application, the matter was taken up by telegraphic correspondence
with the representatives of the employees involved. This correspondence developed that the respective
22 Sept. 15,1909

do.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OP RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

THE ERDMAN ACT, JUNE 1, 1898, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911—Continued.
Employees involved.
Class.

Approxi
mate Represented by—
num
ber.

Date
mediation
conferences
began.

Date
Place of
mediation
mediation Settled by— agreement
conferences.
was reached.

Telegraphers 3,000 Order of Railroad
0
0
0
0
Telegraphers.
m
.......do............ 150 .......do........................
(2)
Firemen and 7,300 Brotherhood of Lo
«
W
W
M
e n g in e comotive Firemen
men.*
and Enginemen.
Engineers... 300 Brotherhood of Lo
0
0
0
0
comotive Engi
neers.
Firemen and
80 Brotherhood of Lo May 25,1909 Atlanta, Ga... Mediation May 29,1909
e n g in e comotive Firemen
and arbi
men.*
and Enginemen.
tration.
Engineers...
Brotherhood of Lo
comotive Engi
neers.
Firemen and
Brotherhood of Lo
e n g in e 95 comotive Firemen
()
0
0
0
men.*
and Enginemen.
Conductors..
Order of Railway
Conductors.
Trainmen...
Brotherhood of Rail
road Trainmen.
Trainmen... 160 Brotherhood of Rail Sept.22,1909 El Paso, Tex.. Mediation... Sept. 25,1909
road Trainmen.
5

Switchmen.. 2,000 Switchmen’s Union Nov 29,1909 St. Paul, Minn
of North America.

Telegraphers 1,400 Order of Railroad Dec. 13,1909 Chicago, 111... Mediation Dec. 17,190
Telegraphers.
and arbi
tration.
Switchmen.. 3,100 Switchmen’s Union Jan. 12,1910 Washington, .......d o......... Jan. 19,1910
of North America.
D. C.

Telegraphers 1,050 Order of Railroad Jan. 24,1910 Cincinnati, .......do......... Jan. 29,1910
Telegraphers.
Ohio.
.......do........... 400 .......do....................... Jan. 27,1910 .......do............. .......d o......... Feb. 17,1910
parties to the controversy had not exhausted their own efforts to reach a settlement, and the mediators
therefore recommended that the two parties resume negotiations and make a further effort to reach an
agreement. This course was adopted, and the case was not again brought to the attention of the mediators.
*In this case the application for mediation was made after a strike had actually been inaugurated, and the
road involved declined to accept the offer of mediation.
«In this case mediation proceedings were actually begun, but it developed at the opening conference
that a strike order had already been issued, and the strike was to become effective at 5 o’clock the following
day. As the representatives of the employees were unwilling either to postpone the time fixed for the
inauguration of the strike or to consider arbitration, negotiations were dropped. The strike began the
following day. It inflicted serious losses on the roads involved, caused loss and suffering to the public,
and resulted disastrously to the employees concerned and to their organization.

BULLETIN* OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,
Table I.—CASES OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION UNDER

Application.
Case
No.

Railroads involved.
Name.

Approxi
mate

28 Mar. 3,1910 Company.

Baltimore & Ohio R. R

4,400

29 Mar. 15,1910

.do.

30 Apr. 6,1910

.do.

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry..............
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. (Coast
Lines).
Canadian Northern Ry................................
Chicago & North Western Ry....................
Chicago & Alton R. R .................................
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R .........
Chicago Great Western Ry.........................
Chicago Junction Ry...................................
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry...........
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry............
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha
Ry.
Chicago Terminal Transfer R. R ................
Chicago & Western Indiana R. R. and Belt
Ry. of Chicago...........................................
Colorado & Southern Ry.............................
Davenport, Rock Island & Northwestern
Ry. South Shore & Atlantic Ry.........
Duluth,
El Paso & Southwestern System...............
Eastern Ry of New Mexico.........................
Southern Kansas Ry. of Texas...................
Fort Worth & Denver City Ry..................
Great Northern R y......................................
Gulf, Colorado
Santa Texas
Fe Ry...................
Houston,
East &
& West
Ry..............
Houston & Texas Central R. R ..................
<Illinois Central R. R .................................... 110,000
International & Great Northern R. R .......
Indianapolis Southern R. R.......................
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Ry.............
Kansas City Southern Ry..........................
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry....................
Missouri Pacific System..............................
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie
Ry. Transfer Ry................................
Minnesota
Mineral Range R. R ....................................
Northern Pacific Ry....................................
Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co..................
Oregon Short Line R. R ..............................
Peoria & Pekin Union Ry..........................
Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City R. R ........
San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R.
St. Joseph & Grand Island Ry...................
St. Joseph Terminal R. R ...........................
St. Louis & San Francisco R. R .................
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Ry.........
Southern Pacific (Pacific System)..............
Southern Pacific (Atlantic System)...........
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry...............
Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry................
Texas & Pacific R y.....................................
Trinity & Brazos Valley Ry.......................
Union Pacific R. R ......................................
VWichita Valley Ry.......................................
Southern Ry................................................. 7,000

Date
received.

Made by-

31 Apr. 23,1910 Company and employees Southern Pacific (Atlantic System)
2,350
jointly.
32 Apr. 25,1910 ___ do................................... Seaboard Air Line Ry.....................
3,000
i The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, while primarily an organization of firemen,
also includes in its membership hostlers and a considerable number of engineers.
* It will be noted that two other applications involving the telegraphers had been received during the
preceding three weeks, and it was not possible to take up the Seaboard Air Line case until May 5. Media
tion developed that the matters at issue between the telegraphers and the Seaboard Air Line were similar
to the questions in the controversy between the Southern Railway and its telegraphers. Conferences were

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

THE ERDMAN ACT, JUNE 1, 1898, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911—Continued.
Employees involved.
Class.
[Conductors.
Trainmen..
[Switchmen.

Bate
mediation
Ap*.
proxi
conferences
mate Represented by—
began.
number.

Bate
Place of
mediation
mediation Settled by— agreement
conferences.
was reached.

Order of Railway
Conductors.
6,400 Brotherhood of Rail Mar. 4,1910 Baltimore, Md. Mediation... Mar. 11,1910
road Trainmen.
....... do.....................

[Mediation
of Lo- ]
IFiremen and j-26,000 [Brotherhood
comotive Firemen } Mar. 17,1910 Chicago, HI.... and arbi- J-Mar. 23,1910
[ enginemen.1
[ tration.
[ and Enginemen. |

Telegraphers. 1,650 Order of Railroad Apr. 7,1910 Washington, Mediation Apr. 15,1910
B.C.
and arbi
Telegraphers.
tration.
May 27,1910 Houston, Tex. Mediation... July 15,1910
300
...do..
.do.
.do................. May 5,1910 Washingt o n,
...do..
600
<*)
B. C.
postponed in the Seaboard Air Line case until an award was handed down on these differences between
the Southern Railway and its telegraphers, which had been passed on to arbitration. After such arbitra
tion award had been handed down, the mediators suggested that inasmuch as similar points at issue had
been settled partly through mediation and partly through arbitration that the Seaboard Air Line and its
telegraphers renew negotiations directly. This was done and an amicable adjustment was reached.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF* LABOR.
Table I.—CASES OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION UNDER

Application.
Case
No.

Date
received.

Made by—

Railroads involved.
Name.

33 May 31,1910 Company and employees Missouri Pacific System..
jointly.
34 June 16,1910 Employees......................... Gulf & Ship Island R. R.
Alabama & Vicksburg Ry..........................
Alabama & Great Southern R. R ..............
Atlantic Coast Line R. R ..........................
Central of Georgia Ry..................................
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific
Ry.
Georgia Southern & Florida Ry.................
35 ___do........... Company.
Mobile & Ohio R. R ....................................
New Orleans & North Eastern R. R.........
Seaboard Air Line Ry.................................
Southern Ry.................................................
Southern Ry. in Mississippi........................
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry.........
Virginian Ry................................................
36 July 16,1910 Company and employees Virginian Ry................................................
jointly.
37 July 18,1910 Company..,
38 Sept. 20,1910 Employees.

Central Vermont Ry............
Birmingham Southern R. R,

Approxi
mate
mileage.
7,200
300

19,950

470
400
30

Sept. 24,1910 Company and employees Denver & Rio Grande R. R,
2,600
jointly.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry..............
Atchison, Topeka & Santa FeRy. (Coast
Lines).
Southern Kansas Ry. of Texas...............
Eastern Railway of New Mexico.............
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry................
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal R. R.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Ry.......
Canadian Northern Ry...............................
Canadian Pacific Ry....................................
Chicago & Alton R. R .................................
Chicago & North Western Ry.....................
Chicago & Western Indiana R. R. and
Belt Ry. of Chicago.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R .........
Chicago Great Western R y..........................
Chicago Junction Ry....................................
Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound R y...
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry...........
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha
Ry.
Colorado & Southern Ry.............................
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Ry.........
El Paso & Southwestern System................
Fort Worth & Denver City Ry...................
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry.
Great Northern Ry......................................
Houston & Shreveport R. R .......................
Houston & Texas Central R. R ..................
Houston East & West Texas Ry................
Illinois Central R. R ....................................
Indianapolis Southern R. R........................ 12
1 There were no mediation proceedings in this case, as the parties to the controversy agreed upon an
arbitration under the provisions of the act without attempting mediation. For further particulars, see
Table H. p. 56.
2 In this case the application for mediation was made after a strike had actually been inaugurated, and
the road involved declined to accept the offer of mediation.
*In this case the application for mediation was made on the day on which the strike was actually to
occur. The strikfe on the Central Vermont was only a part of the larger strike involving the entire Grand
Trunk System. The mediators notified the representatives of the employees of the application for media
tion made by the road. As the application for mediation involved only a part of the system involved in

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

THE ERDMAN ACT, JUNE 1,1898, TO DECEMBER 81,1911—Continued.
Employees involved.
Class.

Ap
proxi
mate Represented by—
num
ber.

Telegraphers. 1,050 Order of Railroad
Telegraphers.
.......do...........
50 ............ do..................

(

Conductors,
Trainmen.,
Switchmen.

jl2,500

Engineers__

[Conductors..
[Trainmen__
Engineers__

180
37
570

Firemen and
enginemen6

[Order of Railroad
Conductors.
Brotherhood of Rail
road Trainmen.
[............ do................

Date
mediation
conferences
began.

C1)

(2)

•June16,1910

Date
Place of
mediation
mediation Settled by— agreement
conferences.
was reached*

(2)

Arbitration.
(2)

(*)
<2)

Washington, Mediation... July 2,1910
D. C.

Brotherhood of Lo July 19,1910 Washington, Mediation... July 23,1910
comotive Engi
D.C.
neers.
Order of Railway
Conductors.
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
Brotherhood of Rail, road Trainmen.
Brotherhood of Lo
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
comotive Engi
neers.
Arbitration.
Brotherhood of Lo
0)
0)
0)
comotive Firemen
and Enginemen.

the threatened strike, the employees were unwilling to separate the case and postpone the inauguration
of the strike on the Central Vermont. As the larger part of the system involved was in Canada and as
obviously no settlement could be reached except one applying to the entire system, the mediators took
no further action in the case.
* In this instance the road replied to the offer of mediation that there was no danger of any serious inter
ruption to traffic, and the following day the representatives of the employees wired that the case had been
amicably adjusted.
6 The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, while primarily an organization of fire
men, also includes in its membership hostlers and a considerable number of engineers.

BULLETIN OP THE BUREAU OF LABOR.
Table I.—CASES OP MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION UNDER

Railroads involved.

Application.
Case
No.

Bate
received.

40 Bee. 15,1910 Company.

Mar. 4,1911 __ do.
do.
42 Mar. 9,1911
41

Name.

Made by—

Approxi
mate

[International & Great Northern R. R.......
Kansas City Southern Ry...........................
Kansas City Terminal Ry...........................
Louisiana Western R. R .............................
Mineral Range R. R ............................. .
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie
Ry.
Minnesota Transfer Ry................................
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry....................
Missouri Paeifie System...............................
Morgan’s Louisiana & Texas R. R .............
New Orleans, Texas & Mexico R. R........
Northern Pacific Ry....................................
Oregon & Washington R. R........................
Oregon Short Line R y................................
Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co...................
Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City R. R........
Rock Island Lines.......................................
St. Joseph & Grand Island Ry...................
St. Joseph Terminal R. R...........................
St. Louis & San Francisco R. R.................
St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Ry......
St. Louis Southwestern R y........................
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry...............
San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R
Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Ry..............
Southern Pacific Co.....................................
Spokane, Portland & Seattle R y................
Tacoma Eastern R. R..................................
Texas & New Orleans R. R ........................
Texas &&Pacific
Trinity
BrazosRy......................................
valley R y.......................
Union Pacific R. R ......................................
Wichita Valley Ry.......................................
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R...............
Benver & Rio Grande R. R. System.........
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific
Ry.

1 1 5 , GOG

2,600
340

Apr. 1,1911 Company and employees Coal & Coke Ry.
jointly.

44 May 27,1911 Company.

200

Southern Ry.

7,000

45 Oct. 22,1911 Company and employees Baltimore & Ohio R. R
jointly.
46

Nov. 11,1911 Employees

4,400

/Montpelier & Wells River R. R
\Barre R. R ...............*.................

{

New Orleans & Northeastern R. R..
47 Nov. 22,1911 Company............................. Alabama & Vicksburg Ry.................
43 Dec. 29,1911 Company and employees Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry.
Chesapeake & Ohio R y.....................
jointly.

70
1

5(H)
2,250

.s 2 a

1The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, while primarily an organization of firemen,
also includes in its membership hostlers and a considerable number of engineers.
2 When this application for mediation was received one of the mediators was in Benver, and the other
New York, on other dnties and unable to leave them. Preliminary negotiations were carried on by
egraph. Several conferences were held in Washington between the dates of the application and the
Element.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

THE EBDMAN ACT, JUNE 1, 1898, TO DECEMBER SI, 1911—Concluded.
Employees involved.
Class.

Approxlmate Represented by—
number.

Date
mediation
conferences
began.

Date
Place of
mediation
mediation Settled by— agreement
conferences.
was reached.

(Brotherhood of LoEngineers.., 24,600 { comotive E ngi- j-Dec. 17,1910 Chicago, 111__ Mediation... Dec. 24,1910
[ neers.

....... do___...
Firemen and
en g in e^
men.1
fEngineers__
Firemen and
e n g in e men.1
Conductors..
(Trainmen...
Firemen and
e n g in e*
men.1
Telegraphers
Firemen and
e n g in e *
■ men.i
Conductors. .
(Trainmen...
Engineers...
Telegraphers

570 ....... do....................... Mar. 10,1911 Denver, Colo.. Mediation...
Washington, ....... do.........
300 Brotherhood of Lo*
(*>
D. C.
comotive Firemen
and Enginemen.
^Brotherhood of Lo
comotive E n g i
neers.
Brotherhood of Lo
Firemen
Arbitration.
► 105 comotive
(3)
(3)
and Enginemen.
Order of Railway
Conductors.
Brotherhood of Railmad Trainmen.
1,800 Brotherhood of Lo May 29,"1911 Wash i ngton, Mediation...
D. C.
comotive Firemen
and Enginemen.
(Baltimore
,Md.
of Railroad /Oct. 24,1911 {Washington,
|....d o .........
1,050 /Order
\Oct. 26,1911 l D. C.
\ Telegraphers.
Brotherhood of Lo
comotive Firemen
and Enginemen.
Order
of Railway
• 38 Conductors.
0)
(<)
<•)
Brotherhood of Rail
road Trainmen.
Brotherhood of Lo
Orleans, Mediation...
160 comotive E n g i - Nov. 27,1911 New
La.
neera.
630 Order of Railroad Jan. 4,1912 Wash i ngton, __ do............
D.C.
Telegraphers.

Mar. 22,1911
Mar. 25,1911

(3)
June 10,1911
Nov. 7,1911
(<)
•
Dec. 7,1911
Jan. 13,1912

* There were no mediation proceedings in this case, as the parties to the controversy agreed upon an
arbitration under the provisions of the act without attempting mediation. For further particulars, see
Table II. p. 56.
<In this case the manager of the road replied that he did not consider the situation serious and believed
the differences could be adjusted by further negotiations with the representatives of the employees. The
representatives of the employees were so notified, and the matter was settled through further direct
negotiations.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOB,

56
T a ble

Case
No.

n .—ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ERDMAN ACT, INCLUDING
DIRECT, JUNE 1,1898, TO
Parties to arbitration.
Railroad
company.

Date of
agreement to
arbitrate.
Employees.

Arbitrators.
Name.

2 Southern Pacific Firemen and Jan. 7,1907 W. E. Green...........
(Atlantic Sys e n g in e *
J. R. Norton.......... .
men.*
tem).
J. V. Lea..................
3 Southern Pacific Telegraphers Feb. 14,1907 R. H. Ingram..........
H. B. Perham...__
(Pacific Sys
Emory R. Johnson..
tem).
20 Georgia R. R . .. Firemen and May 29,1909 Hilary A. Herbert..
Thos. W. Hardwick.
en g in emen.1
David C. Barrow...
24 Illinois Central Telegraphers Dec. 17,1909 Ira G. Rawn.......... .
John A. Newman..
R. R.; Yazoo
B. H. Meyer............
& Mississippi
Valley R. R.;
Indianapolis
Southern R.
R.
25 C er ta in rail Switchmen.. Jan. 19,1910 Carl R. Gray.......... .
roads leading
S. E. Heberling___
out of Chicago.9
Stephen S. Gregory
26 Cleveland, Cin Telegraphers Jan. 29,1910 Horace Baker..........
J. J. Dermody.........
cinnati, Chi
Wm. J. Kerby........
cago & St.
Louis Ry.
27 B a ltim o re & ....... do.......... Feb. 17,1910 Geo. H. Groce..........
Ohio South
J. J. Dermody.........
western R. R.
Wm. J. Kerby.........
29 52 western rail Firemen and Mar. 25,1910 W. R. Scott.............
Timothy Shea.........
roads.«
e n g in emen.1
Wm. L. Chambers..
30 Southern Ry__ Telegraphers Apr. 15,1910 J. S. B. Thompson..
J. J. Dermody.........
Wm. R. Vance........
33 Missouri Pacific ....... do.......... May 14,1910 Albert W. Sullivan..
Frank J. Ryan........
System.
Wm. L. Chambers.
39 Denver & Rio Firemen and Sept. 17,1910 W.S. Martin..........
Grande R. R. en g in emen.1
W. F. Hynes..........
Wm. L. Chambers.

•

43 Coal and Coke Engineers, Apr. 1,1911 H. B. Spencer...
f i remen
P. H. Morrissey.
Ry.
and e n
ginemen,1
Wendell P. Stafford
con4uctors, and
trainmen.

Occupation.
Gen. supt., St. Louis S. W,
Ry. of Tex.
Attorney.....................
Attorney at law.........
Gen. supt., S. Pac. Co...
President, O. R. T.........
Prof, transportation an<
commerce, Univ. of Pa
Attorney.........................
U. S. Representative__
Chancellor, Univ. of Ga.
President, Monon Route
Vice Pres., O. R. T.........
Chm. R. R. Com. of Wis
consin.

res. St. L. & S. F.
.
1st vice pres.S. U.of N.A..
Attorney.......................
Gen. mgr. Q. & C. route .
Vice pres. O. R. T...........
Prof, of sociology, Cath.
Univ. of America,
Asst, to gen. mgr., 111. Cen
tral R. R.
Vice pres. O. R. T.............
Prof,
Univ.of ofsociology,
America. Cath.
Asst. gen. mgr. S. Pac. Co.
1st vice pres. B. L. F. & E.
Lawyer, late member of
Spanish Treaty Claims
Asst, to pres, of Sou. R y ..
Vice pres. O. R. T .............
Dean, Geo. Washington
Univ. Law School.
Gen. mgr. Mo. Pac. Ry ...
Com., Kansas Bd. of R.
R. Commissioners.
Lawyer, late member
Spanish Treaty Claims
Com.
Asst. gen. mgr. D. & R.
G. R. R.
Attorney and counsellor
at law.
Lawyer, late member
Spanish Treaty Claims
Com.
Vice pres. Sou. Ry............
Pres. Am. R. R. Employ
ees and Investors' Assn.
Justice, Supreme Court,
District of Columbia.

1 The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, while primarily an organization of firemen
also includes in its membership hostlers and a considerable number of engineers.
* The two arbitrators agreed upon a third arbitrator, but in order to make the appointment legal (five
days having elapsed) he was appointed by the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the
Commissioner of Labor. F.or further explanation, see pp. 15 and 16.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

CASES WHERE MEDIATION WAS FIRST INVOKED AND CASES OF ARBITRATION
DECEMBER 31,1911.
Arbitrators.
Chosen by—

Hearings by board of arbitration.
of first
Date chosen. Date
hearing.

Place.

Date of
award.

Jan. 31,1907 Houston, Tex.......... Feb. 1,1907

Employers.
Employees.........................................
Chmn. I. C. C. and Com. of Labor a.
Employers.........................................
Employees.........................................
Chmn. I. C. C. and Com. of Labor..
Employers.........................................
Employees.........................................
Chmn. I. C. C. and Com. of Labor a.
Employers........................................
Employees.......................................
Chmn. I. C. C. and Com. of Labor...

Jan. 7,1907
— do.
Jan. 30,1907
Feb. 14,1907
----do...........
Mar. 7,1907
May 29,1909
----do...........
June 19,1909
Dec. 17,1909
— do...........
Jan. 10,1910

Employers.
Employees.........................................
Chmn.. I. C. C. and Com. of Labor..
Employers.........................................
Employees.........................................
Chmn. I. C. C. and Com. of Labor..
Employers.........................................
Employees.........................................
Chmn. I. C. C. and Com. of Labor..
Employers.........................................
Employees.........................................
Chmn. I. C. C. and Com. of Labor..

Jan. 19,1910
Jan. 19,1910
Feb. 23,1910
Jan. 29,1910
— do...........
Feb. 28,1910
Feb. 17,1910
-----do.
Mar. 7,1910
Mar. 25,1910
-----do............
May 10,1910

Employers.........................................
Employees.........................................
Chmn. I. C. C. and Com. of Labor..
Employers.
Employees.
Chmn. I. C. C. and Com. of Labor..

Apr. 15,1910 May 24,1910 Washington, D. C... June 11,1910
-----do...........
May 18,1910
May 14,1910 July 6,1910 St. Louis, Mo........... July 28,1910
-----do.
July 1,1910

Mar. 16,1907 San Francisco, Cal.. Apr. 6,1907
June 21,1909 Atlanta, Ga.............. June 26,1909
Jan. 17,1910 Chicago, 111............... Feb. 7,1910

Mar. 4,1910

Mar. 22,1910

Mar. 7,1910 Cincinnati, Ohio___ Mar. 28,1910
Mar. 14,1910 .......do........................ Apr. 4,1910
May 16,1910 Chicago, 111............... June 4,1910

Employers......................................... Sept. 17,1910 Oct. 11,1910 Denver, Colo............ Nov. 1,1910
Employees......................................... ___ do.
Chmn. I. C. C. and Com. of Labor.. Oct. 6,1910
Apr. 8,1911 May 8,1911 Washington, D. C... May 27,1911
Employers.
Apr. 1,1911
Employees.
Presiding judge Commerce Court May 5,1911
and Com. of Labors
s For details as to roads involved, see Table I, p. 48.
as to roadsagreed
involved,
Tablearbitrator,
I, p. 50. but in order to make
„ the appointment
. • Alegal (five
64For
Thedetails
two arbitrators
uponsee
a third
days having elapsed) he was appointed by the presiding judge of the Commerce Court and the Commis
sioner of Labor. For further explanation, see pp. 15 and 16.

31326°—Bull. 98—12----- 5

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

APPENDIX I.—ACTS CONCERNING MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF
CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COM
MERCE AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.
A ct of J u n e 1, ISOS: 30 S tat ., 424.
S ection 1. The provisions of this act shall apply to any common carrier or
carriers and their officers* agents, and employees, except masters of vessels and
seamen, as defined in section forty-six hundred and twelve, Revised Statutes of
the United States, engaged in the transportation of passengers or property
wholly by railroad, or partly by railroad and partly by water, for a continuous
carriage or shipment, from one State or Territory of the United States, or the
District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or
the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent
foreign country,, or from any place in the United States through a foreign
country to any other place in the United States.
The term “ railroad ” as used in this aet shall include all bridges and ferries
used or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the road in use
by any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a
contract, agreement, or lease; and the term “ transportation ” shall include all
instrumentalities of shipment or carriage.
The term “ employees ” as used in this act shall include all persons actually
engaged in any capacity in train operation or train service of any description,
and notwithstanding that the cars upon or in which they are employed may be
held and operated by the carrier under lease or other contract: P ro vid ed , how
ever, That this act shall not be held to apply to employees of street railroads
and shall apply only to employees engaged in railroad train service. In every
such case the carrier shall be responsible for the acts and defaults of such
employees in the same manner and to the same extent as if said cars were
owned by it and said employees directly employed by it, and any provisions to
the contrary of any such lease or other contract shall be binding only as between
the parties thereto and shall not affect the obligations of said carrier either to
the public or to the private parties concerned.
S ec . 2. That whenever a controversy concerning wages, hours of labor, or
conditions of employment shall arise between a carrier subject to this act and
the employees of such carrier, seriously interrupting or threatening to interrupt
the business of said carrier, the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commis
sion and the Commissioner of Labor shall, upon the request of either party to
the controversy, with all practicable expedition, put themselves in communica
tion with the parties to such controversy, and shall use their best efforts, by
mediation and conciliation, to amicably settle the same; and if such efforts shall
be unsuccessful, shall at once endeavor to bring about an arbitration of said
controversy in accordance with the provisions of this act.1
S ec . 3. That whenever a controversy shall arise between a carrier subject
to this act and the employees of such carrier which can not be settled by
mediation and conciliation in the maimer provided in the preceding section, said
controversy may be submitted to the arbitration of a board of three persons,
who shall be chosen in the manner following: One shall be named by the carrier
or employer directly interested; the other shall be named by the labor organi
zation to wThich the employees directly interested belong, or, if they belong to
more than one, by that one of them which specially represents employees of the
same grade and class and engaged in services of the same nature as said em
ployees so directly interested: P ro vid ed y h ow ever , That when a controversy
involves and affects the interests of two or more classes and grades of em
ployees belonging to different labor organizations, such arbitrator shall be
agreed upon and designated by the concurrent action of all such labor organiza
tions; and in cases where the majority of such employees are not members of
any labor organization, said employees may by a majority vote select a com
mittee of their own number, which committee shall have the right to select the
arbitrator on behalf of said employees. The two thus chosen shah select the
third commissioner of arbitration; but, in the event of their failure to name
such arbitrator within five days after their first meeting, the third arbitrator
shall be named by the commissioners named in the preceding section. A rnaiFor change in law as to mediators see act of March 4, 1911, p. 61, below.

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

jority of said arbitrators shall be competent to make a valid and binding award
under the provisions hereof. The submission shall be in writing, shall be signed
by the employer and by the labor organization representing the employees,
shall specify the time and place of meeting of said board of arbitration, shall
state the questions to be decided, and shall contain appropriate provisions by
which the respective parties shall stipulate, as follows:
First. That the board of arbitration shall commence their hearings within
ten days from the date of the appointment of the third arbitrator, and shall
find and file their award, as provided in this section, within thirty days from
the date of the appointment of the third arbitrator; and that pending the arbi
tration the status existing immediately prior to the dispute shall not be
changed: P ro vid ed , That no employee shall be compelled to render personal
service without his consent.
Second. That the award and the papers and proceedings, including the testi
mony relating thereto certified under the hands of the arbitrators and which
shall have the force and effect of a bill of exceptions, shall be filed in the clerk’s
office of the circuit court of the United States for the district wherein the con
troversy arises or the arbitration is entered into, and shall be final and con
clusive upon both parties, unless set aside for error of law apparent on the
record.
Third. That the respective parties to the award will each faithfully execute
the same, and that the same may be specifically enforced in equity so far as
the powers of a court of equity permit: P ro vid ed , That no injunction or other
legal process shall be issued which shall compel the performance by any laborer
against his will of a contract for personal labor or service.
Fourth. That employees dissatisfied with the award shall not by reason of
such dissatisfaction quit the service of the employer before the expiration of
three months from and after the making of such award without giving thirty
days’ notice in writing of their intention so to quit. Nor shall the employer
dissatisfied with such award dismiss any employee or employees on account of
such dissatisfaction before the expiration of three months from and after the
making of such award without giving thirty days’ notice in writing of his in
tention so to discharge.
Fifth. That said award shall continue in force as between the parties thereto
for the period of one year after the same shall go into practical operation, and
no new arbitration upon the same subject between the same employer and the
same class of employees shall be had until the expiration of said one year if
the award is not set aside as provided in section four. That as to individual
employees not belonging to the labor organization or organizations which shall
enter into the arbitration, the said arbitration and the award made therein shall
not be binding, unless the said individual employees shall give assent in writing
to become parties to said arbitration.
Sec. 4. That the award being filed in the clerk’s office of a circuit court of
the United States, as hereinbefore provided, shall go into practical operation,
and judgment shall be entered thereon accordingly at the expiration of ten
days from such filing, unless within such ten days either party shall file excep
tions thereto for matter of law apparent upon the record, in which case said
award shall go into practical operation and judgment be entered accordingly
when such exceptions shall have been finally disposed of either by said circuit
court or on appeal therefrom.
At the expiration of ten days from the decision of the circuit court upon
exceptions taken to said award, as aforesaid, judgment shall be entered in
accordance with said decision unless during said ten days either party shall
appeal therefrom to the circuit court of appeals. In such case only such por
tion of the record shall be transmitted to the appellate court as is necessary to
the proper understanding and consideration of the questions of law presented
by said exceptions and to be decided.
The determination of said circuit court of appeals upon said questions shall
be final, and being certified by the clerk thereof to said circuit court, judgment
pursuant thereto shall thereupon be entered by said circuit court.
If exceptions to an award are finally sustained, judgment shall be entered
setting aside the award. But in such case the parties may agree upon a judg
ment to be entered disposing of the subject-matter of the controversy, which,
judgment when entered shall have the same force and effect as judgment
entered upon an award.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

Sec. 5. That for the purposes of this act the arbitrators herein provided for,
or either of them, shall have power to administer oaths and affirmations, sign
subpoenas, require the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and the produc
tion of such books, papers, contracts, agreements, and documents material to a
just determination of the matters under investigation as may be ordered by
the court; and may invoke the aid of the United States courts to compel wit
nesses to attend and testify and to produce such books, papers, contracts, agree
ments and documents to the same extent and under the same conditions and
penalties as is provided for in the act to regulate commerce, approved February
fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and the amendments thereto.
• S ec . 6. That every agreement of arbitration under this act shall be acknowl
edged by the parties before a notary public or clerk of a district or circuit
court of the United States, and when so acknowledged a copy of the same shall
be transmitted to the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, who
shall file the same in the office of said commission.
Any agreement of arbitration which shall be entered into conforming to this
act, except that it shall be executed by employees individually instead of by a
labor organization as their representative, shall, when duly acknowledged as
herein provided, be transmitted to the chairman of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, who shall cause a notice in writing to be served upon the arbitra
tors, fixing a time and place for a meeting of said board, which shall be within
fifteen days from the execution of said agreement of arbitration: P ro vid ed ,
h ow ever , That the said chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission shall
decline to call a meeting of arbitrators under such agreement unless it be shown
to his satisfaction that the employees signing the submission represent or in
clude a majority of all employees in the service of the same employer and of
the same grade and class, and that an award pursuant to said submission can
justly be regarded as binding upon all such employees.
S ec . 7. That during the pendency of arbitration under this act it shall not
be lawful for the employer, party to such arbitration, to discharge the em
ployees, parties thereto, except for inefficiency, violation of law, or neglect of
duty; nor for the organization representing such employees to order, nor for
the employees to unite in, aid, or abet, strikes against said employer; nor,
during a period of three months after an award under such an arbitration, for
such employer to discharge any such employees, excppt for the causes aforesaid,
without giving thirty days’ written notice of an intent so to discharge; nor for
any of such employees, during a like period, to quit the service of said em
ployer without just cause, without giving to said employer thirty days’ written
notice of an intent so to do; nor for such organization representing such em
ployees to order, counsel, or advise otherwise. Any violation of this section shall
subject the offending party to liability for damages: P ro vid ed , That nothing
herein contained shall be construed to prevent any employer, party to such
arbitration, from reducing the number of its or his employees whenever in its
or his judgment business necessities require such reduction.
S ec . 8. That in every incorporation under the provisions of chapter five hun
dred and sixty-seven of the United States Statutes of eighteen hundred and
eighty-five and eighteen hundred and eighty-six it must be provided in the
articles of incorporation and in the constitution, rules, and by-laws that a
member shall cease to be such by participating in or by instigating force or
violence against persons or property during strikes, lockouts, or boycotts, or
by seeking to prevent others from working through violence, threats, or in
timidations. Members of such incorporations shall not be personally liable for
the acts, debts, or obligations of the corporations, nor shall such corporations
be liable for the acts of members or others in violation of law ; and such corpora
tions may appear by designated representatives before the board created by
this act, or in any suits or proceedings for or against such corporations or
their members in any of the Federal courts.
S ec . 9. That whenever receivers appointed by Federal courts are in the pos
session and control of railroads, the employees upon such railroads shall have
the right to be heard in such courts upon all questions affecting the terms and
conditions of their employment, through the officers and representatives of
their associations, whether incorporated or unincorporated, and no reduction
of wages shall be made by such receivers without the authority of the court
therefor upon notice to such employees, said notice to be not less than twenty
days before the hearing upon the receivers’ petition or application, and to be

MEDIATION AND ABBITBATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

posted upon all customary bulletin boards along or upon the railway operated
by such receiver or receivers.
S ec . 10. That any employer subject to the provisions of this act and any
officer, agent, or receiver of such employer who shall require any employee, or
any person seeking employment, as a condition of such employment, to enter
into an agreement, either written or verbal, not to become or remain a member
of any labor corporation, association, or organization; or shall threaten any
employee with loss of employment, or shall unjustly discriminate against any
employee because of his membership in such a labor corporation, association,
or organization; or who shall require any employee or any person seeking
employment, as a condition of such employment, to enter into a contract
whereby such employee or applicant for employment shall agree to contribute
to any fund for charitable, social, or beneficial purposes; to release such em
ployer from legal liability for any personal injury by reason of any benefit
received from such fund beyond the proportion of the benefit arising from the
employer’s contribution to such fund; or who shall, after having discharged
an employee, attempt or conspire to prevent such employee from obtaining
employment, or who shall, after the quitting of an employee, attempt or con
spire to prevent such employee from obtaining employment, is hereby declared
to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof in any court of the
United States of competent jurisdiction in the district in which such offense
was committed, shall be punished for each offense by a fine of not less than one
hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars.
S ec . 11. That each member of said board of arbitration shall receive a com
pensation of ten dollars per day for the time he is actually employed, and his
traveling and other necessary expenses; and a sum of money sufficient to pay
the same, together with the traveling and other necessary and proper expenses
of any concilation or arbitration had hereunder, not to exceed ten thousand
dollars in any one year, to be approved by the chairman of the Interstate Com
merce Commission and audited by the proper accounting officers of the Treas
ury, is hereby appropriated for the fiscal years ending June thirtieth, eighteen
hundred and ninety-eight, and June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninetynine, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
S ec . 12. That the act to create boards of arbitration or commission for settling
controversies and differences between railroad corporations and other common
carriers engaged in interstate or territorial transportation of property of per
sons and their employees, approved October first, eighteen hundred and eightyeight, is hereby repealed.
A ct of M a r c h 4, 1911: 36 S t a t . 1397.
The President of the United States from and after the passage of this act is
authorized to designate from time to time any member of the Interstate Com
merce Commission or of the Court of Commerce to exercise the powers conferred
and the duties imposed upon the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission by the provisions of the “ Act concerning carriers engaged in inter
state commerce and their employees,” approved June first, eighteen hundred and
ninety-eight; and the member so designated, during the period for which he is
designated, shall have the powers now conferred by said act on the chairman of
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
APPENDIX II.—ACT CONCERNING ARBITRATION OF CONTROVERSIES
BETWEEN CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
THEIR EMPLOYEES.

1, 1888: A cts of 1887-88.— C h a p t e r 1063.
S ec t io n 1. Whenever differences or controversies arise between railroad or
other tranportation companies engaged in the transportation of property or
passengers between two or more States of the United States, between a Terri
tory and State, within the Territories of the United States, or within the
District of Columbia, and the employees of said railroad companies, which dif
ferences or controversies may hinder, impede, obstruct, interrupt, or affect such
transportation of property or passengers, if, upon the written proposition of
A ct

O ctober

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

either party to the controversy to submit their differences to arbitration, the
other party shall accept the proposition, then and in such event the railroad
company is hereby authorized to select and appoint one person, and such em
ployee or employees, as the case may be, to select and appoint another person,
and the two persons thus selected and appointed to select a third person, all
three of whom shall be citizens of the United States and wholly impartial and
disinterested in respect to such differences or controversies; and the three
persons thus selected and appointed shall be, and they are hereby, created and
constituted a board of arbitration, with the duties, powers, and privileges
hereinafter set forth.
Sec. 2. The board of arbitration provided for in the first section of this act
shall possess all the powers and authority in respect to administering oaths,
subpoenaing witnesses and compelling their attendance, preserving order during
the sittings of the board, and requiring the production of papers and writings
relating alone to the subject under investigation now possessed and belonging
to the United States commissioners appointed by the circuit court of the United
States; but in no case shall any witness be compelled to disclose the secrets or
produce the records or proceedings of any labor organization of which he may
be an officer or member; and said board of arbitration may appoint a clerk
and employ a stenographer, and prescribe all reasonable rules and regulations,
not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, looking to the speedy advance
ment of the differences and controversies submitted to them to a conclusion and
determination, teach of said arbitrators shall take an oath to honestly, fairly,
and faithfully perform his duties, and that he is not personally interested in
the subject-matter in controversy, which oath may be administered by any State
or Territorial officer authorized to administer oaths. The third person so
selected and appointed as aforesaid shall be president of said board; any order,
finding, conclusion, or award made by a majority of such arbitrators shall be
of the same force and effect as if all three of such arbitrators concurred
therein or united in making the same.
Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the said board of arbitration, immediately
upon their selection, to organize at the nearest practicable point to the place
of the origin of the difficulty or controversy, and lo hear and determine the
matters of difference which may be submitted to them in writing by all the
parties, giving them full opportunity to be heard on oath, in person and by
witnesses, and also granting them the right to be represented by counsel; and
after concluding its investigations said board shall publicly announce its
decision, which, with the findings of fact upon which it is based, shall be re
duced to writing and signed by the arbitrators concurring therein, and, to
gether with the testimony taken in the case, shall be filed with the Commis
sioner of Labor of the United States, who shall make such decision public as
soon as the same shall have been received by him.
Sec. 4. It shall be the right of any employees engaged in the controversy to
appoint, by designation in writing, one or more persons to act for them in the
selection of an arbitrator to represent them upon the board of arbitration.
Sec. 5. Each member of said tribunal of arbitration shall receive a compensa
tion of ten dollars a day for the time actually employed. That the clerk ap
pointed by said tribunal of arbitration shall receive the same fees and compen
sation as clerks of United States circuit courts and district courts receive for
like services. The stenographer shall receive as full compensation for his serv
ices ten cents for each folio of an hundred words of testimony taken and reduced
to writing before said arbitrators. United States marshals or other persons
serving the process of said tribunal of arbitration shall receive the same
fees and compensation for such services as they would receive for like services
upon process issued by United States commissioners. Witnesses attending be
fore said tribunal of arbitration shall receive the same fees as witnesses at
tending before United States commissioners. All of said fees and compensa
tion shall be payable by the United States in like manner as fees and com
pensation are payable in criminal causes under existing laws; P ro vid ed , That
the said tribunal of arbitration shall have power to limit the number of wit
nesses in each case where fees shall be paid by the United States: A n d pro
v id e d fu rth e r , That the fees and compensation of the arbitrators, clerks, ste
nographers, marshals, and others for service of process, and witnesses under
this act shall be examined and certified by the United States district judge
of the district in which the arbitration is held before they are presented to the
accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and shall then

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

be subject to the provisions of section eight hundred and forty-six of the
Revised Statutes of the United States; and a sufficient sum of money to pay
all expenses under this act and to carry the same into effect is hereby appro
priated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. A n d
p ro vid ed lik e w ise , Not more than five thousand dollars shall be expended in
defraying the costs of any single investigation by the commission hereinafter
provided for.
Sec. 6. The President may select two commissioners, one of whom at least
shall be a resident of the State or Territory in which the controversy arises,
who, together with the Commissioner of Labor, shall constitute a temporary
commission for the purpose of examining the causes of the controversy, the
conditions accompanying, and the best means for adjusting it; the result of
which examination shall be immediately reported to the President and Con
gress, and on the rendering of such report the services of the two commissioners
shall cease. The services of the commission, to be ordered at the time by the
President and constituted as herein provided, may be tendered by the Presi
dent for the purpose of settling a controversy such as contemplated, either
upon his own motion, or upon the application of one of the parties to the con
troversy, or upon the application of the executive of the State.
Sec. 7. The commissioners provided in the preceding section shall be entitled
to receive ten dollars each per day for each day’s service rendered, and the
expenses absolutely incurred in the performance of their duties; and the ex
penses of the Commissioner of Labor, acting as one of the commission, shall
also be reimbursed to him. Such compensation and expenses shall be paid by
the Treasurer of the United States, on proper vouchers, certified to by the
Commissioner of Labor and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
Sec. 8. Upon the direction of the President, as hereinbefore provided, the
commission shall visit the locality of the pending dispute, and shall have all
the powers and authority given in section 2, to a board of arbitration, and shall
make careful inquiry into the cause thereof, hear all persons interested therein
who may come before it, advise the respective parties what, if anything, ought
to be done or submitted to by either or both to adjust such dispute, and make
a written decision thereof. This decision shall at once be made public, shall
be recorded upon proper books of record to be kept in the office of the Com
missioner of Labor, who shall cause a copy thereof to be filed with the Secretary
of the State or Territory, or States or Territories, in which the controversy
exists.
Sec. 9. In each case the commissioners who may be selected as provided shall,
before entering upon their duties, be sworn to the faithful discharge thereof.
The Commissioner of Labor shall be chairman ex officio of the commission, and
may appoint one or more clerks or stenographers to act in each controversy
only, which clerks or stenographers shall be compensated at a rate not ex
ceeding six dollars per day each, and actual expenses incurred shall be reim
bursed.
Sec. 10. The Commissioner of Labor shall, as soon as possible after the
passage of this act, establish such rules of procedure as shall be approved by
the President; but the commission shall permit each party to a controversy to
appear in person or by counsel, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses.
All its proceedings shall be transacted in public, except when in consultation
for the purpose of deciding upon the evidence and arguments laid before it.
The chairman of the commission is hereby authorized to administer oaths to
witnesses in all investigations conducted by the commission, and such wit
nesses shall be subpoenaed in the same manner as witnesses are subpoenaed to
appear before United States courts and commissioners, and they shall each
receive the same fees as witnesses attending before United States commis
sioners : P ro vid ed , That said temporary board of commissioners shall have the
power to limit the number of witnesses in each case where fees shall be paid
by the United States.
Sec. 11. All fees, expenses, and compensation of this commission shall be
paid as hereinbefore provided in section five of this act.

CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT OF 1907.

In Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor No. 76, May, 1908, and again
in Bulletin No. 86, January, 1910, the operation of the Canadian
Industrial Disputes Act was reviewed, and the purpose, administra
tion, and results of the law and the sentiment toward it were dis
cussed in detail. The purpose of the present article is to bring down
to as near a date as practicable the history of this act, in order that
a study of the experience under the act may be based upon the largest
possible amount of data. The facts covering the entire operation
of the act are especially desirable here in order that they may be
available for comparison with the record of mediation and arbitra
tion proceedings under the Erdman Act in the United States, pre
sented elsewhere in this Bulletin, and with the other studies of
conciliation and arbitration as existing in Great Britain and in
some of the continental countries.
The details of the Canadian act and the methods of its application
have been fully discussed in the two previous articles which have
been devoted to the subject. It will be sufficient for the purposes of
this article to give a brief description of the act and its method of
operation.1
The act applies to all public utilities, including municipal service
corporations, transportation companies of all kinds, and occupations
(like stevedoring) subsidiary to transportation, and also to coal mines
and to metal mines. In these industries and occupations it is unlaw
ful for employers to lock out their workmen or for employees to strike
until an investigation of the causes of the dispute has been made by
a government board appointed for this particular case and the
board’s report has been published. After the investigation is com
pleted and the report made, either party may refuse to accept the
findings and start a lockout or a strike. The investigating board
usually tries by conciliation to bring the parties to an agreement, so
that the functions of the board considerably exceed those of a body
appointed solely to procure information.
The law does not aim at compulsory arbitration or to force men to
work against their will after all chance of an amicable settlement
has disappeared. Neither employer nor employee is compelled to
become party to a bargain he does not voluntarily accept. The pur
pose of the act is limited to discouraging strikes and lockouts in
1 This description is taken in part from Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor No. 86, and
in part from the Fourth Report of the Registrar of Boards of Conciliation and Investiga
tion of the Proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907. Ottawa,
1011 .

CANADIAN INDUSTKIAL DISPUTES ACT.

industries that serve immediately the entire public and to prevent
ing the cessation of such industries through the arbitrary or unwar
ranted acts of either employers or workmen. It seeks to enforce
the right of the people who use railways and burn coal, for instance,
to know on how just grounds, in case of an industrial dispute, they
are deprived of so necessary a service or commodity.
The procedure and machinery for accomplishing this end are as
follows: In the industries in question any change in working condi
tions affecting hours and wages, whether demanded by employers
or workers,1 must be preceded by 30 days’ notice. If such a contem
plated change, or if any other point at issue between the parties,
threatens to end in a strike or a lockout, either party may apply to
the Dominion Labor Department for a board of conciliation and
investigation.
Application forms are supplied by the Department of Labor, but
it is not necessary that applications be made on these forms. The
application must be, however, accompanied by a statement setting
forth (1) the parties to the dispute; (2) the nature and cause of the
dispute, including all claims and demands made by either party on
the other to which exception is taken; (3) an approximate estimate
of the number of persons affected; and (4) the efforts made by the
parties themselves to adjust the dispute. The law requires, further,
that the application should be accompanied by a “ statutory declara
tion setting forth that, failing an adjustment of the dispute or a
reference thereof by the minister to a board of conciliation and
investigation under the act, to the best of the knowledge and belief of
the declarant, a lockout or strike, as the case may be, will be declared,
and that the necessary authority to declare such lockout or strike has
been obtained.”
' This last provision was subjected to a slight modification during
the session of Parliament of 1909-10. Eepresentations had been
made from time to time on behalf of railway men to the effect that
in obtaining the authority to declare a strike or lockout over a line
of railway several thousand miles in length much expenditure of
money and time was necessitated and that the act in this respect bore
severely on the class of labor concerned. The act was therefore
amended so as to provide that where a dispute concerned employees
in more than one Province, thus embracing, it was felt, all cases where
injustice might result from the earlier procedure, there should be an
alternative procedure permitting action to be taken upon declaration
of an authorized trade union committee that, failing adjustment, to
their best knowledge and belief, a strike will be declared.
1 During tlie session of 1909-10 of the Canadian Parliament the act was amended to re'
quire that any such contemplated changes may not take place “ until the dispute has
been finally dealt with by a board.”

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

In order that both parties to the dispute may be made acquainted
with the proceedings taken under the act at the earliest moment
possible and all unnecessary delay prevented, the applicant for* a
board is required to send to the other party concerned a copy of the
application at the time it is transmitted to the department, and the
second party to the dispute is similarly required to prepare without
delay a statement in reply and forward the same to the department
and to the other party to the dispute.
Upon the receipt of the application the minister of labor or his
deputy appoints a board of three members, one upon the recommenda
tion of the employers, another upon the recommendation of the work
ers, and a chairman selected either by the first two members of the
board, or, in case they fail to agree, by the Government. If the work
ers or the employers, either through indifference or in order to block
an investigation, refuse to recommend a representative for appoint
ment, the minister of labor selects at his discretion a suitable person
to fill the place. The members of the board are paid for the time they
serve and for the necessary traveling expenses incurred. The Gov
ernment also provides for necessary clerical expenses and for the
fees of witnesses called for either party.
Each board controls its own procedure, which varies greatly under
different chairmen and in different cases. Usually the most informa
tion is obtained ,and the quickest settlements are made where the
board discusses informally with committees representing both sides
in joint session the various points at issue without laying much
stress on technical evidence. Such informal meetings are apt to
reveal sentiment, air grievances, and explain misunderstandings*
But some boards, on account either of the judicial training of their
members or of the technical character of the points at controversy,
have conducted their proceedings like a law court. If the board suc
ceeds in bringing the parties to an agreement, it embodies the terms
of this agreement in its findings. But if it is unable to end the con
troversy it presents a report, or majority and minority reports, de
scribing the conditions that cause the dispute and usually recom
mending what appear fair terms of settlement. The report or reports
are at once published by the Government, and the employers and
employees involved, if unable otherwise to agree, may then resort to
the last measures of industrial warfare.
The penalty for causing a lockout before the board has reported
is a fine upon the employer ranging from $100 to $1,000, and the
penalty for striking, under like conditions, is a fine of from $10 to
$50 upon each striker. Prosecutions are brought by the aggrieved
party, not by a public officer.

CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT.

The Canadian act came into force March 22, 1907, and the expe
rience under the act is now available to December 31, 1911, covering,
therefore, a period of four years and nine months. During this time
121 applications for intervention under the act were made, 107 of
which were by employees, 13 by employers, and 1 was a joint appli
cation. Upon these applications 109 boards were appointed to deal
with labor disputes. In the following table are shown the number of
applications under the act and the number of boards granted, as well
as the number of strikes averted or ended and the number not averted,
for each calendar year since the act came into effect:
NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS AND OF BOARDS GRANTED UNDER THE ACT, AND OF
STRIKES AVERTED AND OF STRIKES NOT AVERTED, BY CALENDAR YEARS.
[Compiled from Fourth Report of the Registrar of Boards of Conciliation and Investigation of the Pro
ceedings under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, for the fiscal year ending Mar. 31,1911,
and monthly issues of the Labor Gazette, May, 1911, to January, 1912, both issued by the Department
of Labor, Dominion of Canada.]
19071 1908 1909 1910 1911 Total.
Number of applications:
By employers. ........................................................................
By employees..................................... .......................................
Number of boards granted 3 .............................................................
Strikes averted or ended..................................................................
Strikes not averted or ended............................................................

19 2 27
23 26
241 271

3
18
16
5

3
25 19
23 4 1316
25
3 2

2 14
2 108

109

* 105
12

i The act became law Mar. 22,1907, so that proceedings cover 9 months only.
.2 Including the dispute of December, 1908, involving the John Ritchie Co. (shoe factory), where both
parties made application.
a Boards granted are counted as of same calendar year in which application was received. In 5 instances
boards were constituted in the year following year of application.
4 Not including North Atlantic collieries, closed down in liquidation January, 1911, and 3 disputes still
pending Dec. 31,1911.

It will be seen from this table that the number of applications
under the act has differed but little from year to year, the minimum
being 19 applications in 1911, and the maximum 28, appearing in
both 1908 and 1910.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

The distribution of the boards by industries, the number of em
ployees affected directly and indirectly, and the number of cases in
which strikes resulted are shown in the following table:
NUMBER OF BOARDS GRANTED, EMPLOYEES AFFECTED, STRIKERS IN ILLEGAL
STRIKES AND IN LEGAL STRIKES, AND SETTLEMENTS WITHOUT STRIKES, BY
INDUSTRIES, MAR. 22, 1907, TO DEC. 31, 1911.
(Compiled from Fourth Report of the Registrar of Boards of Conciliation and Investigation of the Proceed
ings under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Acs, 1907, for the fiscal year ending Mar. 31,1911, and
monthly issues of The Labor Gazette, May, 1911, to January, 1912, both issued by the Department of
Labor, Dominion of Canada.]
Industries.
Coal mines...................................
Metal mines.................................
Railways......................................
Street railways............................
Telegraph and telephone...........
Municipal employees.................
Shoe factories13...........................
Textile mills 1 3 ...........................
Total..................................

Illegal strikes
Legal strikes
Employ (begun
before or (begun
after report
ees pending investiga
of board).
Boards affected
tion).
granted. directly
and in
directly. Number. Strikers. Number. Strikers.
35
8
38

37,937
1,345
8
5,045
10
7,786
3 2 ,1 2 0
3
433
2
1,243
2
5,270
109 5 131,947
5 70,768

i5
®2
12 4

12,145
550
4,550

*2
91

6,250
575
11,449
603

Settle
ments
without
strikes.
3 26
6
331
i« 6
6
3
3
2
1

17,245

18,877

“ 84

I These strikes were: Western Coal Operators Association (7 companies), 3,595 men, April, 1907, before
they were familiar with terms of act; Nicola Valley Coal & Coke Co., 150 men, Apr. 28 to June, 1909; Western
Coal Operators Association (7 companies), 2,100 men, Apr. 1 to July 1,1909; Canada West Coal Co., 300 men,
Apr. 23 to July 30,1909; Western Coal Operators Association (18 companies), 6,000 men, Mar. 31 to Nov. 17,
1911.
8 These strikes were: Cumberland Railway & Coal Co., 1,700 men, Aug. 1 to Oct. 31, 1907; Dominion
Coal Co., 3,000 men, July 6 , 1909, to Apr. 28, 1910; Cumberland Railway & Coal Co., 1,550 men, Aug. 9,
1909, to March, 1910.
s Not including North Atlantic Collieries Co., closed down in liquidation, pending completion of board,
January, 1911.
4 These strikes were: British Columbia Copper Co., 225 men, June 28 to July 24, 1909; and same com
pany, 350 men, Apr. 19 to May 11,1910.
6 Not including Intercolonial Railway employees, number not reported, dispute of May 14,1908.
« These strikes were: Intercolonial Railway of Canada, 250 men, June 20, 1907, men unfamiliar with
terms of act; Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 300 men, Oct. 10,1911.
* These strikes were: Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., 8,000 men, Aug. 5 to Oct. 5,1908; Grand Trunk Ry. Co.,
3,017 men, July 18 to Aug. 2,1910; Canadian Northern Ry. Co., 432 men, July 7 to Sept. 27,1910.
s Not including two disputes still pending Dec. 31,1911.
9 Winnipeg Electric Ry. Co., Dec. 16 to Dec. 31,1910.
Not including Montreal Street Ry. Co. dispute of June, 1911, still pending Dec. 31,1911.
II Including freight handlers, longsnoremen, and teamsters.
12 These strikes were: Shipping Federation of Canada, 3,100 longshoremen, May 13 to 15, 1907; Furness
Withy Co. (and 2 other companies), 500 longshoremen, May 26, 1907; Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., 250
freight handlers, May 7 to May 10, 1909; also same company, 700 freight handlers, Aug. 9 to Aug. 16, 1909.
13 In these industries' strikes are never illegal, and intervention occurs only with the consent of both
parties. One.eotton-mill strike was terminated by the appointment of a board.
14 See notes to details.

According to the foregoing table, in 20 cases strikes occurred, 11
of which were begun before or pending investigation and were thus
illegal, and in the 9 other cases were begun after the report of the
board and were therefore legal. In 84 cases settlement was effected
without strike.
Of the industries which have made use of the act, the railways
are most important, both on account of the number of boards which
have been appointed and on account of the number of employees
directly and indirectly affected, 38 out of a total of 109 boards and
70,768 out of the total of 131,947 employees directly and indirectly

CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT.

affected being in that industry. Next in importance are the coal
mines, with 35 boards and 37,937 employees affected. In both of
these industries, it will be noticed, there have been illegal strikes—
that is, strikes before or pending the investigation and report of a
board.
Of the results which have attended the operations of the act, the
Fourth Report of the Registrar of Boards of Conciliation and Inves
tigation (1911) sums up the experience as follows:
The most obvious virtue of the act lies, it will be seen, in bringing
the parties together before three fellow citizens of standing and
repute, one at least of whom is a wholly disinterested arbiter, where
a free and frank discussion of the differences may take place and the
dispute may be thrashed out in such a manner as is frequently quite
impossible as between the disputants directly. Granting that such
discussion and investigation take place before a strike or lockout has
been declared and that the board acts with proper discretion and
tact, the chances are believed to be largely in favor of an amicable
adjustment of the differences at issue. Much, of course, depends
upon the chairman, and obviously it is most desirable that he shall
be a gentleman whose reputation, both as a practical man and as a
man of judicial bearing, shall command respect on the part of the
disputants and of the public generally. Inquiry shows that in some-'
what less than half of the cases referred under the act the parties
themselves have agreed on a chairman; in the remainder the appoint- [
ment has been made by the minister of labor.
Apart from the advantages of thus bringing the parties together
before a board, the act invokes the factor of publicity briefly noted
above, and this is believed to have proved a valuable factor in many
instances in averting extreme methods on the part of employer or
employee. There is, first, the publicity involved in the investigation
itself; as a rule a disputant does not desire to submit for investigation
a cause which is obviously unfair, and an impending investigation
leads, not infrequently, to the abandonment of extreme propositions
or contentions. There is, secondly, the publicity involved in the pub
lication of the official report and frequently of newspaper reports of
proceedings, though the latter may be limited by the action of the
board. The publication of the official findings of a board on a given
dispute acquaints the public with the precise circumstances of the
situation, enables the public to determine with some accuracy the
degree of reasonableness or unreasonableness of either party, and in
large measure assures the defeat of action taken by either party con
trary to the findings or recommendations of the board. This has
been, with rare exceptions, the experience of the operation of the act
in Canada.
The statement following, taken from the annual report of the
Canadian Department of Labor and from reports published in the
Labor Gazette, issued by the same department, shows somewhat in
detail the proceedings under the act from September 1, 1909, to
December 31, 1911. The table is in continuation of similar tables
printed in Bulletins Nos. 76 and 86.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

APPLICATIONS FOR BOARDS OF CONCILIATION AND

A.—MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES.
[Compiled from Report of the Department of Labor for the fiscal year ending March 31,1910, and monthly
issues erf The Labor Gazette, May, 1911, to January, 1912, both issued by the Department of Labor,
Dominion of Canada.}
Coal mines.
Date of
receipt
of appli
cation.

Parties to dispute.

Party
making
application.

Locality.

1909.
Nov. 18 Edmonton S ta n d a rd Employer.. Edmonton, Alberta.
Coal Co. (Ltd.) and
employees.
Dec. 2 James W. Bain,contractor .......do........ Cardiff, Alberta.......
for output of Cardiff
Coal Co. (Ltd.), and
employees.
1910.
Jan. 5 Alberta Coal Mining Co. ........do........ .......d o.....................
and employees.
Apr. 18 Canadian-American Coal
& Coke Co. and em
ployees, members of
Frank Local No. 1263,
U. M. W. A.
Oct. 26 Crows Nest Pass Coal Co.
(Ltd.) and employees,
members of district
No. 18, U. M. W. A.
1911. North Atlantic Collieries
Jan. 16
Co. (Ltd.) and em
ployees, members of
Local Union No. 2173,
district No. 26, U. M.
W. A.
Apr. 13 Coal mining companies
(18 in number), com
prising Western Coal
Operators’ Association,
and employees, mem
bers of district No. 18.
U. M. W. A.
May — Canadian Northern Coal
& Ore Dock Co. (Ltd.)
and certain employees,
members of Coal Han
dlers’ Union No. 319.
Nov. — Alberta Coal Mining Co.
and employees in its
mine at Cardiff, Al
berta.

.......do........ Frank, Alberta........

Num
ber of
persons
‘affected Nature of dispute.
directly
and in
directly.
75 Wages and dismissal
of employees.
2 75

Wages and conditions
of employment.

360 Concerning wages and
conditions of em
ployment.
262 Concerning making of
new agreement and
recognition of U. M.
W. A.

Employees. Femie. British Co 3,000 Concerning a lle g e d
breach of agreement
lumbia.
and in c r e a s e d
charge for special
train.
Port Morien, Nova <260 Concerning reduction
in wages and con
Scotia.
ditions of employ
ment.
....... do........ British Columbia,
eastern part: Al
berta, southern
part.
.......do........ Port Arthur, On
tario.
Cardiff, Alberta.......

Making new agree
ment to replace one
expiring Mar. 31,
1911, co n cern in g
wages, conditions of
work, classes of
labor.
5 350 Increase of w a g e s ;
more paj for over
time; union men not
to be discriminated
against; agreements
made to remain in
force 1 year.
80 Increase of wages and
other changes in
conditions of em
ployment.

6 ,0 0 0

Metalliferous mines.

1919.
Jan. 8 British Columbia Copper Employer.. Greenwood, British
Co. (Ltd.) and employ
Columbia.
ees.

350 Employees unwilling
to work with non
union men.

1911.
Jan. 7 The Wettlaufer Silver Employees. South Lorrain, On «65 Concerning reduction
Mining Co. (Ltd.) and
tario.
in wages.
certain employees.
May — Hudson Bay Mining Co.
Mine, 12 miles from
30 Reduction of wages 50
(Ltd.) and certain em
Gowanda, Onta
cents per shift and
ployees, members of
rio.
increase of 15 cents
Gowanaa Miners’ Un
in price of board.
ion No. 154 of W. F. M.
*C, chairman; E, employers; M, men. * Directly, 60; indirectly, 15. * Directly, 35; indirectly, 25.

C A N A D IA N

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT,

INVESTIGATION, SEPTEMBER 1, 1909, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911.

A.—MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES.
[Compiled from Report of the Department of Labor for the fiscal year ending March 31,1910, and monthly
issues of The Labor Gazette, May, 1011, to January, 1912, both issued by the Department of Labor,
Dominion of Canada.J
Coal mines.

Date on Date of
which receipt
Names of members of board
was of report
board.1
consti of
board.
tuted.

Result of reference. >

1909.
1909.
Geo. F. Cunningham, Dec. 2 Dec. 27 A unanimous report was presented by the board, making
C; F. B. Smith, E;
certain recommendations for the settlement of the dis
Clement Stubbs, M.
pute which were accepted by the parties concerned, a
strike being thereby averted.
Proceedings m cpnnection with this application were dis
continued in view of an agreement bemg reached by the
parties concerned.
1910.
1910.
R. G. Duggan, C; J. O. Jan. 17 Apr. 2 A unanimous report was presented by the board, making
Hannah, E; Clement
certain recommendations for the settlement of the dis
Stubbs, M.
pute which were understood to have been accepted by
both parties concerned, a strike being thereby averted.
I. S. G. Van Wart, C; Apr. 29 June 4 Settlement arrived at by chairman without board being
Colin MacLeod, E;
formally convened; settlement effective to Mar. 31,1911.
Clement Stubbs, M.
1911.
I. S. G. Van Wart, C; Nov. 18 Feb. 18 Board effected settlement, which was understood to be ac
W. S. Lane, E; Cle
ceptable to both parties concerned, a strike being thereby
ment Stubbs, M.
averted.
1911.
Prof. Robt. Magill, C; Mar. 9 Mar. 23 During proceedings for establishment of board, company
Duncan G. MacDon
went into liquidation, and mines were accordingly closed
ald, E; Alexander
down.
McKinnon, M.
Rev. C. W. Gordon, Apr. 13 July 5 Board report not unanimous. Both sides firmly opposed
C; Colin MacLeod,
to accepting majority report. Mines closed down Mar.
E; A. J. Carter, M.
31 and remained so until signing of new agreement Nov.
17, effective until Mar. 31,1915.
John McKay, C; Geo. May 19 June 17 Settlement affected on all points in dispute. Concessions
F. Horrigan, E; Ar
made on both sides; men modifying demands respecting
thur Boyd, M.
wages and pay for overtime, and company agreeing not
to discriminate against union men, and that signed agree
ments should hold fori year. Board report unanimous.
Norman Fraser, C; J. Nov.
O. Hannah, E; Cle
ment Stubbs, M.

Dec. 7 Board’s findings were substantially as claimed by the men,
and were signed, with slight modifications, by repre
sentatives of both sides.
Metalliferous mines.

im .
1910.
J. H. Senkler, C; Jno. Jan. 10 Mar. 29 The report of the board was accompanied by a minority
A. Mara, E; Inn.
report, signed by Mr. John Mclnnis. The board’s report
Mclnnis, M.
was substantially in favor of the company. At the close
of the year [March] the-department was in communication
with the parties to the dispute. No cessation of work
occurred.
1911.
1911.
George Ritchie, C; R. Feb. 20 Feb. 28 A unanimous report was presented by the board making
F. Taylor, E; Chas.
certain recommendations for settlement of dispute. No
H. Lowtman, M.
cessation of work occurred.
Geo. Ritchie, C; John May 3 June 6 Board report not unanimous; majority report sustaining
Sharpe, E; Duncan
contentions of company and minority report by Mr. Mc
J. Mc-DonneH, M.
Donnell sustaining claims of men.

? Directly, 110; indirectly, 150.

6 Directly, 150; indirectly, 200.

* Directly, 35; indirectly, 30.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

APPLICATIONS FOR BOARDS OF CONCILIATION AND INVESTI

A.—MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES—Continued.
Railways.

Date of
receipt
of appli
cation.

Parties to dispute.

Party
making
application.

Locality.

1909.
Aug. 11 Intercolonial Ry. and its Employees. Halifax, Nova Sco
roundhouse employees.
tia.
Oct. 2 Intercolonial Ry. and
Intercolonial Ry.
machinists and fitters
System.
in its employ.
Dec. 3 Grand Trunk Ry. and ....... do........
Grand Trunk Ry.
_
telegraphers and stalines, east of De
tion agents in its em
troit, Mich.
ploy.

Num
ber of
persons
affected Nature of dispute.
directly
and in
directly.
Alleged discrimination
against certain em
ployees.
2 406 Concerning dismissal
of certain employees
and alleged violation
of contract.
700 Wages, advertising of
vacancies, etc.

1 1 ,0 2 0

1910.
Mar. 17 Toronto, Hamilton & .......do........ All lines of T. H. &
101 Concerning employ
Buffalo Ry. Co. and its
B. Ry.
ees1 demand for in
conductors, baggagecreased compensa
men, brakemen, and
tion and improved
yardmen.
conditions.
17 Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. .......do........ All lines of C. P. Ry. 4,360 .......do..........................
and its conductors, bag
gagemen, brakemen,
and yardmen.

May

17 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. .......do........ All lines of G. T.R.
and its conductors, bag
System.
gagemen, brakemen,
and yardmen.

3,017 .......do..........................

19 Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. .......do........ G. T. P. Lines.........
Co. and telegraph and
station employees.
22 Dominion Atlantic Ry.
Rentville, N o v a
Co. and employees.
Scotia.

75 Concerning rules and
rates of pay.

3 29 Concerning terms of
employment a n d
dismissal of certain
employees.

Canadian Northern Ry.
Winnipeg,Manitoba.
30 Concerning demand
Co. and its blacksmiths,
for new working
members of Black
agreement,increased
smiths’ Railway Un
wages, and shorter
ion, No. 147.
hours.
Canadian Northern Ry. .......do........
Betw’n .......do..........................
Co. and its blacksmiths’
30
helpers, members of
and 40.
Blacksmiths’ Helpers’
Lodge, No. 335.
Canadian Northern Ry. .......d o........ .......d o....................... 325 Concerning demand
Co. and its machinists,
for new working
members of Fort Garry
agreement and in
Lodge, No. 189, Inter
creased wages.
national Association of
Machinists.
i Directly, 20; indirectly, 1,000.
2 Directly, 3G3; indirectly, 43.

CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT,

GATION, SEPTEMBER 1, 1909, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911—Continued.
A.—MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES—Continued.
Railways.

Date on Date of
which receipt
Names of members of board
was of report
board.
consti of
board.
tuted.

Result of reference.

1909.
1909.
Sir Geo. Gameau, C; Sept. 25 Nov. 17 A unanimous report was presented by the board, making
Jas. H. Gilmour, E;
certain recommendations for settlement of the dispute.
Aaron A. R. Mosher,
The findings of the board were subsequently accepted by
M.
both parties to the dispute, a strike being thereby averted.
Judge J. A. Barron, C; Oct. 19 Dec. 8 A unanimous report was presented by the board, making cer
Jas. II. Gilmour, E;
tain recommendations for the settlement of the dispute
J. G. O’Donoghue,
which were accepted by both parties concerned, a strike
M.
being thereby averted.
J. E. Atkinson, C; Dec. 21 Feb. 24 A report was presented which was unanimous on certain of
Wallace Nesbitt, E;
the matters in dispute, Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, K. C., mem
W. T. J. Lee, M.
ber appointed on behalf of the company dissenting from
the views of the other members on two points. At the
close of the year [Mar. 31, 1910] the department was in
communication with the parties to the dispute. No ces
sation of work occurred.
1910.
1910.
J. E. Atkinson, C; F. Apr. 6
Agreement was reached between parties concerned without
H. McGuigan, E; J.
board having been convened. The terms of settlement of
G. O’Donoghue, M.
this dispute were understood to correspond closely to the
terms of settlement of a similar dispute between the
C. P. R. and its employees in train ana yard service.
J. E. Atkinson, C; Mar. 31 June 22 Report of board was accompanied by a minority report
Wallace Nesbitt, E;
signed by Mr. J. G. O’Donoghue, member appointed on
J. G. O’Donoghue.
the recommendation of the employees. Upon receipt of
these reports negotiations were resumed between the com
M.
pany and the employees concerned which resulted, on
July 21, in an agreement to continue in force until termi
nated by 30 days’ notice in writing. The agreement was
understood to be in some respects similar to, but in other
particulars different from, the terms of settlement pro
posed by the board, and was said to correspond closely
both in respect of rates of wages and rules to “standard*7
rates and rules existing on a number of the principal rail
way systems in the Eastern States.
J. E. Atkinson, C; Apr. 6 June 22 Report
of board was accompanied by a minority report
Wallace Nesbitt, E;
signed by Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, K . C., member appointed
J. G. O’Donoghue,
on the recommendation of the company. Upon receipt of
these reports negotiations were resumed between the com
pany and the employees concerned for settlement of the
differences in question. These negotiations were con
tinued up till July 18, when a strike was declared of the
employees concerned. Strike continued up till Aug. 2,
when it was announced that a settlement had been
arrived at through Government intervention, the strike
being declared off.
His Honor Judge D. Apr. 22 July
A
unanimous report was presented by the board which
McGibbon,C; Don
made certain recommendations for the settlement of the
ald Ross, C; W.T.J.
dispute. No cessation of work occured.
Lee, M.
Hon. John N. Arm- Apr
May 12 Report of board was accompanied by a minority report
strong, C; McCallum
signed by Mr. Aaron A. R. Mosher, member appointed on
Grant, E; Aaron A.
behalf of the employees, which was accepted by them.
R. Mosher, M.
The department was informed by the company that there
would be no discrimination on its part between union and
nonunion men. No cessation of work occurred.
No board established, settlement having been arrived at
between the parties concerned.
Do.
Do.

31326°—Bull. 98—12---- 6

8 Directly, 4;

indirectly, 25.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

APPLICATIONS FOR BOARDS OF CONCILIATION AND INVESTI
A. —MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES—Continued.
Railways—Continued.

Date of
receipt
of appli
cation.

Parties to dispute.

Party
making
application.

Locality.

1910.
Northern Ry. Employees. W innipeg,Manitoba.
May 2 Canadian
Co. and its machinists’
helpers, members of
Federal Union, No. 4.
.do
do
2 Canadian Northern Ry.
Co. and its molders.
members of Molders5
Union, No. 174.
.do
.do
2 Canadian Northern Ry.
Co. and certain em
ployees, members of
Brotherhood of Rail
way Carmen, Northern
Star No. 371, and Plum
bers, Gas and Steamfitters’ Union, No. 479.
.do
.do
2 Canadian Northern Ry.
Co. and its boiler
makers, boilermakers’
specialists and boiler
makers’ helpers, mem
bers of Boilermakers
and Iron Ship Builders
of America, Fort Garry,
No. 451, and Boiler
makers, Iron Builders
and Helpers, No. 212 .
Canadian Govern
.do
June 21 Intercolonial & Prince
ment Ry. System.
Edward Islands Rys.
and telegraphers, train
despatchers, and sta
tion agents, members
of Order of Railroad
Telegraphers.

Num
ber of
persons
affected Nature of dispute.
directly
and indirectly.
57 Concerning demand
for new working
agreement, increas
ed wages and shorter
hours.
13
.do
432

170

.do

490 Concerning proposed
a m e n d m e n t s to
schedule and alleged
mistreatment of cer
tain employees.

24 Concerning demand
28 Grand Trank Ry.* Co...........do........ Montreal, Quebec...
for minimum rate
and brass workers in
of 30 cents per hour.
Montreal, members of
Brass Workers, Local
320.
Sept. 3 Canadian Pacific Ry. Co...........do........ C. P. R. System in 4,000 Concerning demand
Canada.
for increased wages
and maintenance-ofway employees.
and r e v i s i o n of
schedule.
Whole system of G, 1,000
3 Grand Trunk Pacific Ry.
.do
.do
T. P. Railway.
Co. and maintenanceof-way employees.
3 Canadian Northern Ry. ....... do.... C. N. R. System in
Canada.
Co. and maintenanceof-way employees.
1911.
Feb. 10 Kingston & Pembroke
Ry. Co. and firemen
and hostlers, members
of the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen.
Quebec
& Lake St. John
June —
Ry. Co. and its car men.

.do

Kingston, Ontario..

.do
i Directly, 11; indirectly, 20.

1,800

.do..........................

131 Concerning demand

for increased wages
and r e v s i o n of
rules.

2 95

Wages, and conditions
of employment.

CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT,

GATION, SEPTEMBER 1, 1909, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911—Continued.
A.—MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES—Continued.
Railways—Continued.

Date on Date of
which receipt
Names of members of board
was of report
board.
consti of
board.
tuted.
1910.

1910.

Result of reference.

No board established, settlement having been arrived at
between the parties concerned.
Do.

Wm. Elliott Macara, May 23 June 28 Board presented a unanimous report making certain rec
C; David H. Cooper,
ommendations for a settlement. Award was not accepted
E ; Philip C. Locke,
by employees concerned, some of whom declared strike on
July 7. Strike continued until Sept. 27, when the men
returned to work on the terms of the board's award.
David H. Cooper, E

Pending establishment of board a settlement was arrived at
between parties concerned.

1911.
1911.
His Honor Judge John Jan. 4 Feb. 20 Establishment of board was postponed owing to arrange
ments being made for a conference between the Govern
A. Barron, U; J. H.
Gilmour, E ; J. G.
ment railways managing board and representives of the
employees concerned. A request was received from
O'Donoghue, M.
the employees on Nov. 14,1910, for a board, no settle
ment having been arrived at. A unanimous report was
received, making certain recommendations for the settle
ment of the dispute which were accepted by the Govern
ment railways managing board and By the employees.
A. G. B. Claxton, C ; July 13 July 30 Report of board was accompanied by a minority report,
Wm. Aird, E ; C.
Aug. 2 signed by Mr. Wm. Aird, member appointed on behalf
Rodier, M.
of the company. Report was accepted by the employees
concerned. No cessation of work occurred.
His Honor Judge D. Sept. 21 Mar. 1 Report of board was accompanied by minority report signed
Mar. 4 by Mr. F. H. McGuigan, member appointed on behalf of
McGibbon, C ; F. H.
McGuigan, E ; W.
the company. Department was informed that the major
ity report was accepted by company and employees con
T. J. Lee, M.
cerned.
His Honor Judge D. .. .do__ Jan. 7 Report of board was accompanied by minority report signed
by Mr. J. W. Dawsey, member appointed on behalf of the
McGibbon, C; J.W.
Dawsey, E ; W. T.
company. Report was accepted on behalf of employees
concerned. The company, however, declined to be bound
J. Lee, M.
by the board findings. No cessation of work occurred.
His Honor Judge D. Sept. 22 Mar. 2 Report of board was accompanied by minority report signed
McGibbon, C; F. H.
Mar. 10 by Mr. F. H. McGuigan, member appointed on behalf of
the company. Employees accepted board findings,
McGuigan, E ; W.
company, however, declined to be bound by the same,
T. J. Lee, M.
but accepted instead the minority report. No cessation
of work occurred.
Department advised parties concerned that further effort
should be made to effect settlement, and on Mar. 11,1911,
was informed that an amicable settlement had been
arrived at.

No board established. New schedule of rates and condi
tions arranged and agreed to between the parties June 15.
* Directly, 80; indirectly, 15.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

APPLICATIONS FOR BOARDS OF CONCILIATION AND INVESTI
A.—MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES—Continued.
Railways— Concluded.
Date of
receipt
of appli
cation.

Parties to dispute.

Party
making
application.

Locality.

Num
ber of
persons
affected Nature of dispute.
directly
and in
directly.

1911.
July 18 Grand Trunk Ry. system Employees. All lines of company. 18,000 Wages, hours, and
in Canada and its ma
conditions of em
chinists, apprentices,
ployment.
and helpers.
Aug. 1 Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. .......do........ ....... do....................... 150 Schedule of agreement
Co. and its boiler
covering w a g e s ,
makers.
hours, and condi
tions of e m p l o y
ment.
Sept. 11 Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. ....... do........ Calgary and Medi 213,000 Dismissal of two em
and its clerks, freightcine Hat, Alberta.
p l o y e e s because
shed men, checkers,
members of union.
truckers, etc.
70 New schedule of agree
Nov. — Quebec Central Ry. Co. .......do........
and station agents and
ment covering rules
telegraph employees.
and rates of pay.
Dec. — Michigan Central R. R. .......d o .......
8 3,115 Refusal of company to
and station agents, tele
adopt amendments
graph and telephone
to existing schedule
operators.
of rules and rates of
pay.
Street railways.

1910.
July 5 Toronto Ry. Co. and em Employees. Toronto, Ontario__ 1,300 Concerning demand
ployees, members of
for new working
Toronto Railway Em
agreement.
ployees' Union,No. 113.
Aug. 22 British Columbia Electric
Vancouver and vi
50 Concerning demand
Ry. Co. and linemen,
cinity.
for dismissal of fore
members of Local No.
man of linemen.
213, International
Brotherhood of Elec
trical workers.
Oct. 22 Winnipeg Electric Ry. .......do......... Winnipeg,Manitoba. 603 Concerning alleged
Co. and conductors and
d is c r im in a ti o n
motormen, members of
against certain em
Amalgamated Associa
ployees, members of
tion of Street Railway
Amalgamated Asso
Employees of America,
ciation of Street
Local No. 99.
Railway Employ
ees.
1911.
June 21 Montreal Street Ry. Co. .......do......... Montreal, Quebec... <2 ,0 0 0 Dismissal of certain
and conductors and
employees and al
motormen, members of
leged discrimination
Street and Electric
against them as
Railway Employees of
members of the
America, No. 328.
union.
1 Directly, 2,000;

indirectly, 6,000.

* Directly, 6,500; indirectly, 6,500.

CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT,

GATION, SEPTEMBER 1, 1909, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911—Continued.
A.—MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES—Continued.
Railways —Concluded.
Date on Date of
which receipt
Names of members of board
was of report
board.
consti of
board.
tuted.

Result of reference.

1911.
1911.
J. C. Teetzel,C; Wal Aug. 23 Oct. 21 Board awarded that old rules remain in force and that rates
lace Nesbit, E; J.
of pay be advanced in a number of cases.
G. O’Donoghue, M.
J. W. Sparling, C; J. ...d o __ Oct. 25 On all points in dispute the board unanimously sustained
L. Gordon, E; Thos.
the men. Company refused to accept the board’s find
J. Murray, M.
ings.
-----, C;-----, E ; J. A. Oct. 19
McDonald, M.
-----, C;-----, E ; J. G.
O’Donoghue, M.

[Report still pending Dec. 31,1911.]
Nov. 30 department notified that agreement had been
reached by parties themselves.
[Report still pending Dec. 31,1911.]

Street railways.

1910.
1910.
His Honor Judge July 16 Aug. 20 A unanimous report was presented by board making cer
John A. Barron, C;
tain recommendations for settlement of dispute, which
were accepted by both parties concerned.
J. P. Mullarkey, E;
J. G. O’Donoghue,M.
of board not completed, the parties concerned
A. E. Beck, E; Jas.
Sept. 12 Constitution
having arrived at a settlement of the matters in dispute.
H. McVety, M.
W. J. Christie, C; Nov. 11 Dec. 13 Report of board was accompanied by a minority report
Capt. Wm. Robin
Dec. 15 signed by Mr. L. L. Peltier, member appointed on the
recommendation of the employees concerned. Em
son, E; L. L. Peltier,
ployees ceased work on Dec. 16,1910, to enforce their de
M.
mand for reinstatement of four discharged employees. A
settlement was effected through the intervention of citi
zens’ committee, by which strike was terminated on Dec.
31,1910.
1911.
1911.
Chairman served with notice Aug. 15 that a petition for
Mr. Justice Fortin, C; July 19
writ of injunction had been filed on behalf of company
J. L. Perron, E; C.
asking that proceedings before the board be forbidden by
Rodier, M.
the courts, as being ultra vires. Writ granted and statu
quo restored until final judgment on legal point raised by
company. [Still pending Dec. 31,1911.]
3 Directly, 115; indirectly, 3,000.

<Directly, 30; indirectly, 1,970.

BULLETIN OP THE BUKEAU OF LABOB.

APPLICATIONS FOB BOABDS OF CONCILIATION AND INVESTI
A —MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES-Conttaued.
Shipping.

Date of
receipt
of appli
cation.

Parties to dispute.

Party
making
application.

Locality.

Num
ber of
persons
affected Nature of dispute.
directly
and indirectly.

1910.
Line, Donaldson Employees. Montreal, Quebec... 1,800 Concerning wages and
tar. 14 Allan
conditions of em
Line, Thomson Line,
ployment.
Leyland Line, White
Star-Dominion Line,
Canada Line, South
African Line, Mexican
Line, Manchester Lin
ers, Black Diamond
Line, Head Line, Cana
dian Pacific By. Line,
and all other owners of
steamships navigating
to Montreal and Syn
dicated Longshoremen
of Montreal.
200 Concerning w a g e s ,
Line, Donaldson
.do
do,
A.ug. 8 Allan
hours, and condi
Line, Thomson Line,
Leyland Line, White
tions of employ
Star-Dominion Line,
ment.
Canada Line, South
African Line, Mexican
Line, Manchester Lin
ers, Black Diamond
Line, Head Line, Cana
dian Pacific By. Line
and
all other
owners inof
vessels
navigating
the port of Montreal
and the Ship Liners of
the Port of Montreal.
Vancouver and Vic 1136
.do
do
3ept. 10 Canadian Pacific Steam
toria, British Co
ship Co. and its employ
ees commonly known
lumbia.
as deck hands, at Van
couver and Victoria,
members of Sailor’s
Union of the Pacific.
Freight handlers.

1909.
Aug. 18 Canadian Pacific By. Co. Employees. Fort William. On
and its freight handlers
tario.
at Fort William, On
tario.

700 Concerning wages. ....

Commercial telegraphers and telephone companies.

1910.
June 23 Canadian Pacific By. Co. Employees. Commercial t e 1 e600 Concerning w a g e s
and commercial tele
graph lines of Can
and conditions of
graphers, members of
adian Pacific By.
employment.
Commercial Telegraph
ers’ Union of America.
1911.
Mar. 3 Great Northwestern Tele .......do........ All offices operated 21,300 .......do..........................
graph Co. of Canada
b y th e G r e a t
Northwestern Tel
and telegraphers; mem
bers of Commercial Tel
egraph Co. of Can
egraphers’ Union of
ada.
America.
Sept. 6 British Columbia Tele ....... do........ Lines in British Co 220 Increase of wages and
phone Co.
lumbia.
company’s attitude
to union men.

i Directly, 86; indirectly, 50.

CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT,

GATION, SEPTEMBER 1, 1909, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911—Continued.
A.—MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES-Continued.
Shipping.

Date on Date of
which receipt
Names of members of board
was of report
board.
consti of
board.
tuted.

Result of reference.

1910.
1910.
Hon. Mr. Justice T. Apr. 7 Apr. 20 A unanimous report was presented by the board, making
Fortin, C; Wm.
certain recommendations for the settlement of the dispute,
Lyall, E; Gustave
which were accepted by both parties concerned, an agree
Franeq, M.
ment being entered into effective for a period of five years.
In connection with the same a permanent board of con
ciliation was established to settle such grievances as might
from time to time be complained of.

W. D. Lighthall, C; Aug. 22 Sept. 16 Report of board was accompanied by a minority report
J. Herbert Lauer,E;
Sept. 17 signed by Mr. J. Herbert Lauer, member appointed on
George Poliquin,M.
the recommendation of the Shipping Federation of Can
ada. The report was acceptable to the employees con
cerned; the shipping companies, however, in a com
munication addressed to the department, expressed
themselves as unable to accept the majority report. No
cessation of work occurred.

His Honor Judge W. Oct. 27 Nov. 28 A unanimous report was presented by board, making cer
W. B. Mclnnes, C;
tain recommendations for the settlement of the dispute
G. E. McCrossan, E;
which were accepted by the employees concerned. The
J. H. McVety, M.
company maintained that it had no dispute with its em
ployees and that, therefore, no action on its part was nec
essary. No cessation of work occurred.
Freight handlers.

1909.21 1909. Men went on strike Aug. 9 without formal warning and be
S. C. Young, C; W. J. Aug.
Aug. 24
Christie, E; W. T.
fore applying for board; claimed to be unaware of exist
Rankin, M.
ence of the act. Resumed work Aug. 16. Unanimous
report presented by the board, which was accepted by
both parties to the dispute.
Commercial telegraphers and telephone companies.

1910.
1910.
J. E. Duval, C; F. H. July 7 July 25 A unanimous report was presented by board in which it was
McGuigan, E; D.
stated that an agreement was concluded between the par
Campbell, M.
ties concerned on all points at issue.
1911.
1911.
Hon. Mr. Justice J. V. Mar. 30 July 13 Board report unanimous. Findings accepted by employees
Teetzel, C; Freder
concerned Aug. 24.
ick H. Markey, E;
D. Campbell, M.
J. H. Senkler, C; W. Sept. 29 Nov.
H. Barker, E; Chas.
Enright, M.

Board report divided; majority sustaining the claims of the
men; minority finding that the men were already ade
quately paid.

2 Directly, 200; indirectly, 1,100.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

APPLICATIONS FOR BOARDS OF CONCILIATION AND INVESTI
A —MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES—Concluded.
M unicipal public utilities .
Date of
receipt
of appli
cation.

Parties to dispute.

Party
making
application.

Locality.

1911.
June — Cities of Port Arthur and Employees. Port Arthur and
Fort William, Ontario,
Fort William, On
and electrical workers,
tario.
members of I. B. of E.
W. of A., Local Union
339.
City of Edmonton, Al ....... do........ Edmonton, Alberta.
berta, and electrical
workers, Local Union
No. 544,1. B. of E. W.
of A.

Num
ber of
persons
affected Nature of dispute.
directly
and in
directly.
198 Wages, hours per day,
date of payment,
overtime, and an
nual agreement.
35 Wages and working
rules.

B.—INDUSTRIES OTHER THAN MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES.
1911.
Apr. 13 Four shoe manufacturing Employees. Quebec.
c o m p a n i e s : J ohn
Ritchie Co. (Ltd.);
Wm. A. Marsh Co.
(Ltd.); Gale Bros.; J.
M. Stobo; and certain
employees.

i Directly, 32; indirectly, 66 .

943 Increase of wages.

CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT,

GATION, SEPTEMBER 1, 1909, TO DECEMBER 31,1911—Concluded.
A.—MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER
PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES—Concluded.
M unicipal public utilities.

Date on Date of
which receipt
Names of members of board
was of report
board.
consti of
board.
tuted.

Result of reference.

1911.
1911.
Rev. S. C. Murray, C; June 1 June 30 All differences amicably settled and threatened strike
J. Dix Fraser, E;
averted. Unanimous findings of board accepted and
signed by both parties.
C. W. Foster, M.
H. C. Taylor, C; A. W. June 2 ...do — New schedule of wages and working rules drawn up and
unanimously agreed to; submitted to both parties and
Ormsby, E; W. Symonds, M.
after some changes accepted by them. Dispute har
moniously settled.
B —INDUSTRIES OTHER THAN MINES, AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER PUBLIC-SERVICE UTILITIES.
1911.
1911.
G. W. Jolicceur, C; Apr. 15 June 24 Settlement affected in each case by unanimous report of
Felix Marois, E; J.
board.
A. Langlois, M.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION OF RAILWAY LABOR DIS
PUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENT OF 1907.

In Great Britain, since November 6, 1907, the settlement by con
ciliation and arbitration of questions in dispute between railway
companies and their employees relating to the rates of wages or
hours of labor of any class engaged in the manipulation of traffic
has been under an agreement secured through the Board of Trade
and signed by representatives of the railway companies and of the
leading railway men’s trade-unions.1 This agreement was the out
come of a series of protracted conferences following a threatened
general railway strike in 1907. The agreement was signed initially
on behalf of 11 of the principal railway companies, but its terms
were afterwards accepted by 35 others. The 46 companies which
entered into this agreement, together with one other company which
had a scheme of conciliation of its own, employed over 97 per cent of
the railway workers in the United Kingdom.
Under the plan agreed upon conciliation boards were formed for
each railway company^ to deal with questions referred to them either
by the company or its employees which could not be settled through
the usual channels. The various grades or occupations of men com
ing under the scheme were grouped in a suitable number of sections
or groups of grades, for each of which a sectional conciliation board
was formed. Each sectional board consisted on the men’s side of
one or more representatives elected by and from among the em
ployees of the particular section in each district, and on the com
pany’s side included an appropriate number of officers representing
the company, with one or more directors, if practicable. In addition
to the sectional boards there was for each railway a central concilia
tion board, consisting of one or more representatives chosen from
each sectional board.
The plan provided that any application for a change in rates of
wages or hours of labor was first to be made in the usual course
through the officials of the departments concerned. A reply was
to be given within two months, and if no reply were received within
that time, or if the decision were not accepted, the men could require*I
1 For terms of this agreement and for sample scheme formed under it, see Appendixes
III and IV, pp. 117-122.

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

the matter to be referred to the sectional conciliation board, which
was to be at once convened to consider it. If the sectional board
failed to reach a settlement, the question might be referred, on the
motion of either side, to the central board, and upon the failure to
reach an agreement by the central board the question should go to
arbitration. In case of arbitration a single arbitrator was to be
appointed for the particular case by agreement between the two sides
of the conciliation board, or, in default of agreement, by the speaker
of the House of Commons and the master of the rolls, or, in the un
avoidable absence or inability of one of them to act, then by the
remaining one. The decision of a conciliation board was, subject to
certain provisions, to be binding on the parties and not to be reopened
within 12 months. The decision of an arbitrator was to be binding
on all parties for a period fixed by him for the duration of his award.
The agreement might be terminated only after 12 months’ notice
had been given by one side or the other, but no such notice was to be
given within 6 years from the date of the agreement.
The agreement of 1907 was drawn up in November, and many of
the roads did not accept it until the following year. The process of
setting up the machinery it provided took considerable time, and but
little was done in the way of settling disputes in 1908. By 1909,
however, on most of the roads the scheme was in full working order,
and in that year 265 cases were handled by 30 boards. Of these 171
were settled, 67 of them by arbitrators. In 1910 comparatively few
disputes arose, most of the leading roads having in the preceding
year effected settlements lasting three years or more. However, 14
boards handled 97 cases, of which 72 were settled during the year.1
The adoption of the agreement of 1907 happened to coincide with
a period of decreased earnings in the railroad world, with a conse
quent reduction of expenses, including wages, and a general process
of “ speeding up,” so that the employees might in many cases be get
ting actually less pay while doing more work than they had a year
or two earlier. At the same time pressure was brought to bear on
the railway companies to cut down, in the interests of public safety,
the long hours which some of the men were working. This cut off
the overtime pay at the same time, that regular wages might be cut
down. Also in the interests of public safety, much stricter physical
examinations and especially stricter eyesight tests were instituted,
so that many good workers found themselves reduced to more poorly
paid positions or in some cases even laid off. Naturally, the men
thus affected felt they had cause for complaint.
Apart from this, however, the scheme proved unsatisfactory. Pro
ceedings under its terms, the men complained, were slow and expen
1 Report on Strikes and Lockouts and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards in tho
United Kingdom in 1910, Board of Trade (Labor DepartmentL London. 1911, p. 81.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

sive, and a marked tendency appeared to look upon arbitration not as
a last resort, to be called upon only in the most difficult and intricate
cases, but as the inevitable goal of every case brought up by the em
ployees. As the scheme had been based upon the idea of conciliation,
with arbitration as a last resource, much time was consumed in reach
ing the final stages. Much of the delay, the men believed, was wholly
unnecessary, and, rightly or wrongly, they credited the companies
with utilizing every possibility of delay for the sake of postponing
decisions and continuing the conditions of which complaints were
made. Worse still, when an award was finally reached, there was
often a difference of opinion between the two parties as to its real
meaning. Legal language is always open to private interpretation;
and if the men interpret a decision in one way and the employers in
another, as too often happens, it is usually a cause of fresh irritation
and friction.
The bitterness aroused by these grievances was greatly increased
by the belief of the men that the machinery provided by the scheme
of 1907 had been ingeniously wrested from its true intent and used
as a means of delaying or preventing any fair settlement of their
difficulties.
By 1910 the men had reached a pitch of irritation which found
official expression during the annual convention of the Amalgamated
Society of Railway Servants during September of that year. At
this convention the executive committee presented the following
resolution, which was adopted by the society:
That having regard to the unfortunate irritation and incon
venience which is being experienced by the general public as a con
sequence of the unrest that is so evident at the present time among the
railway workers, this executive committee, after giving serious con
sideration to the same, hereby declares that this unfortunate position
of affairs has been created by the vexatious attitude of many of the
railway companies toward the working of the scheme of conciliation
and arbitration agreed to in 1907 between the Board of Trade, the
railway companies, and this society; and further, we take this op
portunity to explain to the public that unless the spirit as well as
the letter of the aforementioned agreement is observed more fully
in the future than it has been in the past, this committee will have
to seriously consider the advisability of repudiating the scheme
agreed to in 1907.
But no improvement, from the men’s point of view, followed, and
the feeling grew more and more bitter, until August, 1911, when the
crisis was reached. A very significant indication of the state of
feeling among the workers was seen in the beginning of this month
when the Board of Trade issued to the railway men’s unions schedules
providing for the nomination of the men’s representatives on the new
sectional conciliation boards, which under the terms of the agree

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

ment of 1907 were to be elected during this year. In many instances
the men tore the schedules to pieces and burned them as an indica
tion of their utter dissatisfaction with the working of the scheme
and their refusal to take any further part in it.
RAILWAY STRIKE OF AUGUST, 1911.

In the early part of the month trouble arose on the Lancashire &
Yorkshire Railroad. Some of the men asked for an increase of 2
shillings (49 cents) a week with a minimum of 20 shillings ($4.87)
a week. The request was refused in what the men considered an
unnecessarily arbitrary and high-handed manner, and they struck.
On August 13, Sunday, a crowded meeting of railway workers of all
grades was held in Manchester to express sympathy with the strikers,
at which the following resolution was proposed by a person in the
body of the hall:
That this meeting of railway workers of all grades gives notice
that if the demands of the men already on strike are not granted
within 24 hours we will immediately withdraw our labor.
This was put to the meeting and carried with much cheering,
after which strike committees were duly appointed, representing each
branch of the several railway men’s organizations. Bitter com
plaints were made at this meeting of the treatment accorded the men,
of long hours, low wages, etc., but the leaders realized that the
trouble was not so much with any one road or specific grievance or
set of grievances as with the general situation which had developed
between employers and employees. Mr. J. E. Williams, general sec
retary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, said:
It would be useless for me to deny the serious character of the
situation. The unrest among the men has reached such a pitch that
there is no telling what any particular hour may bring forth. * * *
It is no use attempting to name particular lines where unrest pre
vails. It is widespread and includes all lines.
The truth of his statement was shown on the following day when,
without longer waiting for concerted action, railway men struck at
Liverpool, Glasgow, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol, and many other
large cities. Everywhere the complaints were the same. Rightly or
wrongly, the men seemed firmly convinced that the machinery of
the agreement of 1907 was being used against them as a means of
delay and postponement of issues instead of being used in the spirit
in which it was designed.
On August 15 a conference of representative railway men, consist
ing of the executive committees of the Amalgamated Society of Rail
way Servants, the Associated Society of Locomotive Enginemen and

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

Firemen, and General Kailway Workers’ Union, and the secretary
of the Signalmen and Pointsmen’s Society was held ih Liverpool.
Mr. Williams, secretary of the first mentioned of these organizations,
called attention to the resolution passed in the previous September
by his society.1 At this meeting, which lasted all day, the following
resolution was agreed to unanimously and was made public in the
form of a notice to the railway companies:
That this joint meeting of the executive committee of the Amal
gamated Society of Railway Servants, of the Association of Locomo
tive Enginemen and Firemen, the General Workers’ Union, and the
Signalmen and Pointsmen’s Society, summoned to consider the criti
cal situation which has arisen in connection with the strike of rail
way workers in Liverpool and other centers, and also the almost
universal demand on the part of our members for instructions to
cease work immediately, hereby unanimously agree to offer to the
railway companies 24 hours to decide whether they are prepared to
meet, immediately, representatives of these societies to negotiate a
basis of settlement of matters in dispute affecting the various grades.
In the event of this offer being refused, there will be no alternative
than to respond to the demand now being made for a national
stoppage.
This notice was not to become operative until the following day,
so that the 24 hours specified would end on August 17.
With a view to avoiding a strike, the Board of Trade asked for a
conference with the executive officers of the railway men’s unions.
In response to this request the latter reached London early on August
17 and went into conference with the president and other officials of
the Board of Trade. In the course of this conference the representa
tives of the men were questioned as to the actual causes on which the
issuance of the strike order was based, the grievances connected with
the conciliation act, etc. Summarizing their replies, the prime min
ister, who met them later, said:
Your answer to the first and second questions is that the ground of
your action is the failure of the railway companies to behave in the
spirit and letter of the conciliation board agreement of 1907, and the
utter impossibility of the men’s representatives to redress the many
grievances of which the men complain.
Your answers to all the remaining questions have been based upon
and assumed the correctness of these statements, and it is of first and
most essential importance to establish or disprove by impartial inves
tigation the soundness of your statements.12
For this purpose His Majesty’s Government are prepared to'appoint
immediately a royal commission to investigate the working of the con
ciliation agreement, and to report what amendments, if any, are
desirable in the scheme, with a view to a prompt and satisfactory set
tlement of the difference.
I hope to announce without delay the names of the commissioners,
who will meet at the earliest possible moment.3
1 See p. 84.
2 From newspaper account, August 18, 1911.
8 Board of Trade Labor Gazette, September, 1911,

p. 322.

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

After considering the offer the men decided that it did not meet
the needs of the situation and must be declined. As the 24 hours
specified in their ultimatum had more than elapsed, telegrams were
sent out at once to all the branches of the four unions calling for an
immediate strike.
It was estimated that over 200,000 employees—union and non
union—responded to the call. Every railroad was' affected except the
London & South Western. The wages on that road were somewhat
higher than on the others, and the men could always obtain an un
prejudiced hearing by the officials of the company.
Almost immediately after the strike call was issued it was learned
that a grave misunderstanding existed concerning the appointment
of the “ royal commission.” It was feared by the men that its pro
posal was a scheme to evade the issue and to postpone action by the
appointment of “ a roving commission merely for putting off the evil
hour.” In the House of Commons that same evening Mr. Lloyd
George emphatically disclaimed any such intention on the part of the
Government. On the contrary, the proposed commission was to be
“ a committee of inquiry—a small one, a judicial one, and above all
one which would lead to a prompt decision and a prompt report,
which would involve decisive action with a view to putting an end
to the causes of this irritation, so fruitful of unrest and disturbance,
charged with disaster and catastrophe to the industrial system.”
Upon this explanation of what the commission was meant to be,
negotiations were renewed, officials of the Government acting as in
termediaries between the railroad directors and the labor representa
tives. Through their efforts a conference was arranged between
representatives of the Government, the railway companies, and the
men.
SETTLEMENT OF THE STRIKE.

The conference met at the Board of Trade on August 19, and after
prolonged discussion the following settlement was unanimously ar
rived at and signed:
1. The strike to be terminated forthwith and the men’s leaders to
use their best endeavors to induce the men to return to work at once.
2. All the men involved in the present dispute, either by strike or
lockout, including casuals, who present themselves for work within
a reasonable time, to be reinstated by the companies at the earliest
practicable moment, and no one to be subjected to proceedings for
breach of contract or otherwise penalized.
3. The conciliation boards to be convened for the purpose of set
tling forthwith the questions at present in dispute, so far as they are
wTithin the scope of such boards, provided notice of such questions be
given not later than 14 days from the date of this agreement. If the
sectional boards fail to arrive at a settlement the central board to
meet at once.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

Any decisions arrived at to be retrospective as from the date of
this agreement.
It is agreed that for the purpose of this and the following clause,
44rates of wages ” includes remuneration whether by time or piece.
#4. Steps to be taken forthwith to effect a settlement of the ques
tions now in dispute between the companies and classes of their em
ployees not included within the conciliation scheme of 1907, by means
of conferences between representatives of the companies ana repre
sentatives of their employees who are themselves employed by the
same company, and, failing agreement, by arbitration to be arranged
mutually or by the Board of Trade.
The above to be a temporary arrangement pending the report of
the commission as to the best means of settling disputes.
5. Both parties to give every assistance to the special commission
of inquiry, the immediate appointment of which the Government
have announced.
6. Any question which may arise as to the interpretation of this
agreement to be referred to the Board of Trade.1
Assurances were given by both parties that they would accept the
findings of the commission of inquiry, the terms of reference to which
are as follows:
To investigate the working of the railway conciliation and arbi
tration scheme signed on behalf of the principal railway companies
and of three trade-unions of railway employees, at the Board of
Trade, on November 6,1907, and to report what changes (if any) are
desirable with a view to the prompt and satisfactory settlement of
differences.
On behalf of the Government an assurance was given to the rail
way companies that they would propose to Parliament at the next
session legislation providing that an increase in the cost of labor due
to the improvement of conditions for the staff would be a valid justi
fication for a reasonable general increase of charges within the legal
maxima if challenged under the act of 1894.
It was also stated on behalf of the Government that the commission
would consist of five members, including members representing
employers and workmen in equal numbers, with a neutral chair
man, the commission to proceed with its inquiries as expeditiously
as possible, and to report with the least possible delay.
When the terms of the settlement were made public, the rank
and file of the railway employees made many bitter protests
against the Government, the railway companies, and their own offi
cials, but loyalty to their representatives prevailed and work was
resumed. The agreement was reached on the night of August 19;
on August 22 the members of the royal commission were announced
and its first sitting was held on August 23.
1

Board of Trade Labor Gazette, September, 1911, pp. 322, 323.

BAILWAY LABOB DISPUTES IN GBEAT BRITAIN.

INQUIRY OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
COMPLAINTS OE THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.

The commission commenced its inquiries on August 23. Its find
ings are given elsewhere,1 but the testimony offered before it brings
out more fully than the condensed summary there given the men’s
grounds of complaint. Naturally there was some difference in these,
according to the company by whom a given witness was employed.
The secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants
thought the chief objections to the scheme of 1907 were, in effect :
Irritating delay in acceptance of petition of men’s grievances.
Slow and cumbersome machinery for settling such grievances.
Enormous cost to the trade-unions of arbitration proceedings.
(Eleven cases cost the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants
£30,000 [$145,995].)
Claim of the companies to be sole interpreters of the awards.
Refusal to recognize the men’s unions.
DELAY IN ACTING UPON COMPLAINTS.

Concerning the first and second items, it was explained that a
petition from the workers concerned was the first step in bringing
any matter before the employers, but there were no definite rules
as to the number or proportion of signatures such a petition must
have before the directors would consent to receive it. Consequently
when a petition was presented it might be sent back as being insuffi
ciently signed, and the men would have to collect more signatures,
not knowing at all how many were needed. When a petition was
received, an answer was not obligatory until two months had elapsed.
If the answer were unfavorable, there were numerous opportunities
for delay in calling the meetings of the successive boards. “ Taking
the companies all round, the lapse of time from application to settle
ment extended to 15 and 18 months.” And meanwhile the grievance
against which the original petition was directed was continued in
full force.
CLAIM OF COMPANIES OF RIGHT TO INTERPRET AWARDS.

Another grievance which produced perhaps even more irritation
was the claim of the companies to be the sole interpreters of the
awards given. The men felt that if there was a difference of opinion
as to the meaning of an award there should be a discussion between
the two sides of the central board as to its real import, or else the
arbitrator should be appealed to, while the companies took, in effect,
the ground that their reading was the only tenable one, and that
neither discussion nor appeal was in order. Consequently it was
only after long delays, if at all, that the men succeeded in getting
1

See Appendix I, pp. 100-109.

31326°—Bull. 98—12-----7

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

disputed points discussed or referred back to the arbitrator. One
case was instanced in which an award was given in February, 1909,
to become effective in April. The men’s side of the central board
asked in February for a reference back to the arbitrator that the
terms might be interpreted. This the company refused, and when,
later on, difficulties arose over the various meanings put upon the
award they insisted the whole procedure of the conciliation scheme
should be invoked, i. e., that the men should present petitions and
send deputations, that the sectional boards should be called into
play, that the questions should be passed up to the central board,
and only after its action might the arbitrator be called upon to say
what he meant, which point was reached and an interpretation
given in January, 1910, nearly a year after the award was made.
Many of the grievances brought before the boards, the witnesses
declared, were not settled yet, although awards had been given.
Such matters might be easily settled if the representatives of masters
and men could be brought together for free discussion.
Other witnesses brought forward additional complaints. The
scheme of 1907 was not sufficiently inclusive, some thought; it dealt
only with wages and hours, but there were many griev
ances which did not come under these heads—fines, suspensions,
deductions, and withholding of advances and promotions. Further
more, complaint was made that the companies sometimes varied the
awards or evaded them by so changing conditions of work that men
failed to get the benefits the awards were supposed to give.1
Another complaint was that while the companies came before the
different boards fully informed as to every circumstance, the men’s
side had no practicable means of getting the information they
needed; and that the companies might, and in some cases did, refuse
to furnish this, so that the men’s representatives had to work with
incomplete knowledge. For instance, the wages of certain classes of
workers varied considerably from place to place on the same roads.
Cases were cited in which, when applications from these workers
were brought before the conciliation boards, the companies refused
to give any information as to rates of pay, so that the men’s side of
the boards either had to work in the dark or send to every place
•where such workers were employed and learn by individual question
ing wThat wages each got—a process so slow, expensive, and difficult
as to be practically impossible. The men themselves did not always
know the conditions of their employment.2*
1 Officers of the companies admitted that in some cases such changes had been made,
but claimed that these were matters of management, which the agreement of 1907 left
entirely in their hands.
* Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed to investigate and
report on the working of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme of 1907,
pp. 45 and 46; p. 52, q. 1299; p. 82, q. 2030; p. 228, qq. 5980 and 5981.

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

Again it was felt that arbitrators’ awards were made binding for
too long a period. Many of the awards given were to last through
1914, and no matter what changes might occur meanwhile in cost of
living and general rates of wages, the men were estopped from even
asking for any improvements until the expiration of the period fixed.
Still another objection was the difficulty of getting arbitrators
sufficiently familiar with railroad work to understand and adjudicate
fairly the questions brought before them. “ One of our greatest
difficulties,” said one witness, discussing the decision of a certain
arbitrator, “ was to get him to understand the work of the various
grades. There is a great number of grades in many of these arbitra
tion cases which in their ordinary work differ one from the other.
I am afraid that has lost, in a number of cases, really the point at
issue.” 1 Other witnesses declared in effect that the men were afraid
to risk arbitration because of this drawback. Judges and other prom
inent men who had no practical experience in railroading could
hardly be expected to understand its intricacies, and the men felt that
by bringing cases before such arbiters they were more likely to lose
than to gain.12
REFUSAL TO RECEIVE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEN.

There were other minor points of annoyance and irritation, but
the greatest difficulty of all was the attitude of the companies toward
the unions. In principle, and to a very large extent in practice, they
declined to recognize that organizations of any kind existed among
the men. They were willing to deal with individual men in their
employ, or with a group of men acting as a delegation, but they
refused in toto to receive anyone as a representative of the men
unless he were actively employed in their service. This, the men
felt, put them at a very unfair disadvantage. In any negotiations
between them the companies were represented by highly trained
experts, familiar with every detail of the company’s business, and
thoroughly skilled in the art of presenting a case.
On their part the men could only put forward one of their own
number, a man who, as engineer or guard or fireman or other worker,
was employed from 8 to 12 hours a day at one detail of the com
pany’s service, and had only such time as was left after his day’s
work for familiarizing himself with the general situation, collecting
the data needed for backing up his case, and preparing himself to
set forth his arguments effectively. Moreover, he was necessarily
hampered by the fact that he was arguing with his own employers,
and that if he created a bad impression upon them his future pros
1 Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed to investigate and
report on the working of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme of 1907.
p. 231, q. 6019. London, 1911.
2 Idem, p. 161, q. 3922; p. 214, q 5473; p. 188, q. 4682.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,.

pects, if not his present position, might be seriously injured.1 If
the men tried to meet this situation by paying their chosen advocate
a salary, so that he might be free to work up their case and present
it unhampered, he immediately ceased to be an employee of the com
pany and was therefore no longer eligible to represent them, either
in informal conferences with the employers or before the concilia
tion boards. If a case went to arbitration, he might appear before the
arbitrator, but up to that stage the men must be their own advo
cates.
There was some disagreement among the men as to the stage at
which it should be permitted to call in a trade-union official as
spokesman. A few thought this should be permissible as soon as a
man felt he had a grievance, but the majority agreed that it would,
be better to have a first interview between the men and their
superiors alone.12 If the matter were settled in this interview, well
and good, but if not, the man or men concerned should have a right to
another interview, in which they might be represented by their tradeunion officials or anyone else whom they chose, and they should be
equally free in their choice of a representative if the matter went to
conciliation. Most of the witnesses also thought that this right of
representation should not be confined to matters of hours and wages
only, but should extend to the numerous other questions over which
trouble was always likely to occur.
ALLEGED VICTIMIZATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEN.

The witnesses for the men complained of numerous cases in which
those who had taken an active part in trying to secure better condi
tions had been victimized, i. e., dismissed or reduced in grade or
1 1 spent 30 years with a railway company myself. During that period I occupied the
position of a representative on behalf of the men on several occasions, and while I am
prepared—and I always like to do justice to everyone—to say that the company permitted
me to exercise a reasonable freedom in the position that I occupied, nevertheless, though
not being unduly a nervous man, I always felt a certain amount of temerity when advo
cating the men’s claims. I think that it would appeal to everyone that when you are
arguing an economic question with your own employers, it is just possible for you perhaps
to argue it a little more vigorously than they care for, and as a consequence it is bound to
have an effect upon the advocate, no matter who the individual may be. (Minutes of
Evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed to investigate and report on the
working of the Railway Conciliation *and Arbitration Scheme of 1907, p. 7, q. 132.
London, 1911.)
2 We say that in the event of a deputation of the men waiting upon the management to
discuss questions of conditions of employment, they should be accompanied, if they desire,
by a representative of their trade-union. I do not mean by that, and the society does not
mean, that if any individual man at a station has got some point of difference or griev
ance against his particular company he must immediately report it to the society, and
the society insist upon accompanying that man to the management. * * * Where
we have recognition we insist upon the practice that the men themselves should first mak£
local representations to their own immediate official, but in the event of their failing to
obtain satisfaction, if it is a question, say, where there is a large number of men involved
and a deputation is appointed from a station, if they request, and only at their request,
and not at the request of the union, they shall be accompanied by a representative of the
society. (Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed to investi
gate and report on the working of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme of
1907, p. 608. London, 1911.)

BAILWAY LABOB DISPUTES IN GBEAT BBITAIN.

given less desirable work or otherwise penalized. The companies’
witnesses denied that such victimization ever took place, and declared
that in the specific cases cited by the men the penalty was inflicted
for other causes and was in no wise connected with the sufferers’
efforts to secure better conditions.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINTS OF THE MEN.

It will be seen that the complaints of the men centered around
two points—first, the absence of any recognition of their unions and
the closely connected refusal of many of the companies to treat
with the men as equal parties in the conciliation proceedings, and,
second, the alleged violation by the companies of the spirit and intent
of the pact by delaying its working most unreasonably, by claiming
the right to be sole interpreters of the awards when given, and by
varying conditions of work after awards had been given, so that
those who would otherwise have profited by these awards gained no
advantage from them. The men felt that they had very serious
grievances in the matters of long hours, low wages, and oppressive
conditions of work, and that the agreement of 1907 had been so per
verted from its true purpose that it was merely an ingenious device
for preventing any remedial action.
ANSWERS OE THE RAILWAY COMPANIES.

The representatives of the railway companies who testified before
the commission denied the charges of delay and bad faith in the
working of the scheme of 1907, and on their side complained strongly
of the recent strike as a breach of the agreement. They also claimed
that they had signed the agreement on the understanding that the
question of recognition was not to be raised during its existence,1
and for the men to bring forward that demand at the present junc
ture was a violation of their bargain which showed the futility of
entering into negotiations with the unions. For the most part they
were fairly well satisfied with the scheme of 1907, though they sug
gested various changes which would make it work more satisfactorily.
OPPOSITION TO RECOGNITION OF THE UNION.

Most of the railway officials were absolutely and unalterably op
posed to recognition of the unions in any shape or form. Various
minor reasons were assigned for this attitude, such as the difficulty
of dealing with the numerous organizations among which the union
ists were divided, the fact that the majority of railroad workersi
i The managers of the North Eastern Railway had not signed the agreement of 1007,
but had conciliation methods of their own which involved full recognition of the union.
Their grievance was the sympathetic strike, which brought their men out in' August,
although they had no personal reasons for striking.

BULLETIN OF THE BUBEAU OF LABOR*

were not unionized and hence could not be represented by a tradeunion official, the unreasonable character of union demands, etc., but
the reason upon which most emphasis was placed was the effect such
recognition would have upon the discipline of the force. The sole
purpose of seeking recognition, some felt, was to increase the power
of the unions.
The meaning of the word 44recognition,” as asked for by the tradeunions, is, to my mind, this: It is an undefined something which the
railway companies are asked to concede with a view of enabling the
trades-unions to coerce nonunionists to join their societies, so as to
put them in a position to dictate terms to the railway companies and,
if necessary, to declare a strike with every possibility of success.1
Even those railway officials who did not take as extreme a view as
this of the purposes of the union felt that to permit a trade-union
official, as such, to take any part in the negotiations before they
reached the final stage of arbitration would interfere disastrously
with the safe and effective working of the railroads.
The commission will know as well as I do that the British rail
ways stand absolutely at the top of the railways of the world as re
gards safety of working. There is nothing comparable to them in
any country of the world, and that is brought about by the very
high state of discipline which exists on the railways. If the action
of an officer in controlling and directing his staff is to be subject to
the criticism of an outsider and the intervention of that outsider,
the authority of that officer must be weakened. It is only by the
knowledge that the officer has got supreme, direct, and unquestion
able control over his men that the discipline which gives the British
public the safety they enjoy in traveling can be maintained.12
ATTITUDE OF PARTIES TOWARD CONCILIATION.

It will be seen that neither side presented arguments against con
ciliation in itself. A few witnesses on the men’s side declared that
their fellow workers had become so disheartened and disgusted by
the way in which the plan of 1907 was worked that they wanted
nothing more to do with conciliation in any form, preferring to go
back to the old method of striking at discretion; but these were very
much in the minority. The men in general had not lost their belief
in conciliation, but only in this particular method. It will be no
ticed that the report of the royal commission gives a number of plans,
all involving conciliation and most allowing arbitration, which the
witnesses for the workers’ side suggested as substitutes for the pres
ent arrangement. Apparently none of them wished to sweep away
1 Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed to investigate and
report on the working of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme of 1907,
p. 353. London, 1911.
2 Idem, p. 374.

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

the existing machinery and have nothing in its place. Among the
witnesses on the companies’ side, also, there was no inclination to
revert to earlier methods. Many of them admitted that they had
signed the agreement reluctantly, but, having tried it, they did not
wish to relinquish the plan, though they suggested various improve
ments.
REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

The royal commission, after reviewing the evidence, suggested cer
tain amendments to the scheme of 1907 designed to secure promptness
of settlement, uniformity of procedure, and finality of decision.1
It was suggested that the central boards be abolished, and that
the sectional boards, with some alterations and additions, should per
form the conciliation work not settled by direct negotiations between
the parties concerned.
All matters of difference dealing with rates of wages, hours of
labor, or conditions of service other than matters of management or
discipline, if not settled by conference between deputations of the
men and the company, should be referred to the conciliation boards.
Either side of a board, by 14 days’ notice, might ask for a special
meeting, submitting the matter to be discussed. A neutral chairman
was provided for, to be selected by the conciliation boards from a
panel to be prepared by the Board of Trade, the same chairman to act
for all the boards on a system during the entire period of office of
those boards. The fees and expenses of the chairman were to be paid
by the Board of Trade. Any differences arising as to matters to be
placed on the program should be decided by the chairman, as well as
any question of interpretation not settled by the board.
No steps should be taken to alter existing agreements and awards
before July 1,1912.
The proposed new scheme should remain in force until November
6,1914, and thereafter be subject to revision as regards any company,
by 12 months’ notice by the company, or by a majority of the repre
sentatives of the employees on all the conciliation boards of the com
pany’s system.
The scheme proposed contemplates final settlement at boards by
conciliation, if possible without a chairman, but if conciliation fails,
then by bringing in a chairman. The representatives of the men on
each board shall be at liberty to appoint as their secretary any suit
able person, whether an employee of the company or from outside,
but he shall not have the power to vote unless he shall have been duly
elected a member. Men charged with misconduct, neglect of duty,
or other breaches of discipline should be permitted to state their
defense, to call witnesses, and to advance any extenuating circum
stances before their officers prior to a final decision being arrived at.
1For the recommendations of the Royal Commission in full, see pp. 105-108.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.
CRITICISM OF THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

The report of the royal commission was very far from satisfying
the men; in fact, it provoked a storm of opposition. The principal
objection was its failure to secure “ recognition,” i. e., the right of
the men to representation by their trade-union officials at all stages
of proceedings between them and their employers. The amended
scheme provides that the men may choose anyone they please for
their secretaries upon the conciliation boards, but leaves untouched
the existing rule that only employees of a company may be concerned
in the initial stages—the presentation of petitions and the discussion
of grievances before the company officials. This representation
through their trade-unions the men regarded as almost a sine qua
non. They would, for the most part, admit that the first discussion
of a grievance or presentation of a request should be carried on be
tween the men and their superiors only, but if this conference failed
to result satisfactorily they felt that the trade-union officials should
be called in at once. They pointed out that an employee, more used
to working than to speaking and wholly unskilled in the art of pre
senting a case, is at a grave disadvantage as compared with the
shrewd and trained officials before whom he must plead his cause.1
He is unable to do justice to the complaint or petition he has to
present, and quite apart from any bias on the part of the employers
his cause does not get a fair show. More important still, the men,
whether rightly or wrongly, seemed thoroughly convinced that the
employee who thus puts himself forward in the effort to remedy a
grievance exposes himself to petty persecution, to reduction of wages
or refusal of promotion, and to possible discharge. Naturally under
such circumstances there would be difficulty in getting complaints
brought forward, and the original grievance would be augmented by
the men’s feeling that any attempt on their part to secure a remedy
would be likely to result disastrously for them. “ The railway men’s
battle will never be fought,” declared one writer, voicing the opinion
of his fellows, “ until the directors are faced by representatives over
whom they have no power, whom they can not boycott or blacklist.”
They also objected strongly to the ruling that no change in existing
settlements could be considered until July, 1912, on the ground that
conditions had so changed since these settlements were adopted that
they had in some cases become unfair and oppressive. The provision
requiring the signatures of 25 per cent of the men affected12 to any
petition for improvements was deemed unreasonably severe, and it
1 How can a workman go forward and arbitrate with his employer, a man with just a
common board school education, and on the other side men with the best college educa
tion? They can twist and turn your figures as much as they like. (Minutes of Evi
dence taken before the Royal Commission appointed to investigate and report on the
working of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme of 1907, p. 328. London,
1911.)
2 See Appendix II, clause 2, p. 109.

BAILWAY LABOB DISPUTES IN GBEAT BRITAIN.

was pointed out that the terms of the settlement were in several
points so vague that they would almost inevitably provoke dissension
when the two sides of the conciliation boards tried to apply them.
The dissatisfaction of the men was so intense that on November 2
the executive committees of the four railway unions wrote to the
prime minister asking that a conference be arranged between their
representatives and those of the railway companies, with a view to
amending the scheme; should this be refused, they could not recom
mend the adoption of the plan. The prime minister conferred with
representatives of the leading railway companies, who refused to
agree to the proposed conference, holding that both sides had bound
themselves to accept and act upon the findings of the royal commis
sion. Upon receipt of this reply, the joint executives called for a
vote of all railway unionists upon two questions: Whether they should
accept the report as it stood and whether they favored a strike to
secure better terms. The ballot papers were to be returned by
December 5.
While this ballot was being taken the matter was brought up in
the House of Commons, and a resolution was passed unanimously
calling for a conference between the two sides and asking the Gov
ernment to use its good offices to bring this about. The Board of
Trade then sent letters to each side inviting them to confer, on the
understanding that the findings of the royal commission were ac
cepted in principle and in substance. The railway representatives
agreed to confer on this basis, and the two sides met at the Board of
Trade December 7.
AMENDMENT OF THE CONCILIATION SCHEME OF THE ROYAL
COMMISSION.

As the result of this conference, several alterations, involving
important concessions to the men, were made in the plan proposed
by the commission.1 The employers must receive a deputation, if
the men wish to send one, within 14 days of the receipt of a peti
tion. Petitions and answers must be made in writing, thus avoiding
some possibilities of misunderstanding. Clause 2, providing that
if the employees wish to apply for any changes a petition must be
presented, signed by 25 per cent of those affected, was altered to
provide that special meetings of the conciliation boards might be
held at once, at which the necessary percentage should be decided
upon; if the two sides were unable to agree, the 25 per cent should
stand. Clauses 5 and 6 were amended to provide that, in the case of
a company wishing to alter adversely wages, hours, or conditions of
service, it must notify the workers concerned, and the matter must
be brought up and passed upon at the next meeting of the concilia
1

For the amendments agreed to in this conference, see pp. 115-117.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

tion board, the change not becoming effective until the board had
approved it or the chairman given his decision in its favor. Varia
tions in trip rates, if unsatisfactory to the men, might be referred
to the next meeting of the conciliation board, and its decision should
be retroactive. Alterations in existing settlements might be made
at the meeting of the conciliation boards to be held in May, 1912,
but should not take effect till July, 1912. A number of other amend
ments were made, all in the direction of securing a smoother working
of the scheme. In addition, the railway representatives present
bound their own roads to pay extra and casual men for the time
actually worked at rates not lower than the minimum rates paid
regular employees for the same work, and undertook to get other
companies to adopt the same arrangement. The plan as amended
was signed December 11,1911.
Even with these amendments, the plan was so distasteful to a num
ber of the workers that for a time it was a question whether the
members of the executive committees could prevail upon the unionists
to accept it. At the present time, however, it seems to have been
adopted, and the more moderate element is pointing out the im
portance of the concessions gained. The union has secured a large
measure of recognition, employees have henceforth the right to know
the conditions under which they are employed, awards can no longer
be made binding for long periods, the possibility of delay has been
much reduced, the right to secure prompt interpretation of disputed
points has been conceded, and the inclusion of “ conditions of serv
ice ” among the matters coming within the scope of the boards, while
presenting opportunities for disagreements, also gives the workers a
tenable ground for bringing up any matter they choose. As an ad
ditional gain, although the royal commission refused to interfere
with existing settlements, the companies, as a direct result of the
strike and the resulting publicity, have in many cases altered the
terms allowed them, making substantial advances in wages.
ATTITUDE OF PARTIES AND THE PUBLIC TOWARD CONCILIATION AND
ARBITRATION.

It is as yet rather early to say what has been the effect of the strike
upon the attitude of all concerned toward conciliation and arbitra
tion, but on the whole there seems much reason to believe that the
movement in their favor gained substantially. A section of the men
are, it is true, almost in open revolt against the conciliatory scheme
adopted, but they seem to be rather a small minority. The leaders
have given strong evidence of their faith in conciliation, and declare
that in doing so they represented the real sentiment of their sup
porters. The attitude of the railway managers is more problematic.

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

Some of them had evidently accepted the principles of conciliation
in good faith, and saw no reason for giving them up; others had ac
cepted them reluctantly, and claimed that neither side had benefited
thereby. Even these latter, however, would not admit when ques
tioned on the point that they would be willing to sweep away all
machinery for consultation and discussion, and to go back to the old
methods—or lack of methods.1
As to the general public there can be no question that the strike
gave a powerful impetus to the cause of conciliation. Thousands had
been inconvenienced, in some cases most seriously, and whole cities
had been brought to the verge of acute suffering, because, in the first
instance, certain employers and their men could not agree. Obvi
ously, the public ought to be protected against such possibilities.
The question of the relation between employer and employee was
brought home to multitudes who in the natural course of events
'would never have considered it, and their attitude was clearly shown
when the railway representatives refused to confer with the union
officials over the terms proposed by the royal commission. Here
was a case where the public’s rights were imperiled because one
party to a dispute refused to adopt the principles of conciliation;
and the House of Commons promptly and unanimously demanded
that that party should recede from what they considered an unjusti
fiable position. A more striking proof could hardly have been given
of the extent to which the public has departed from the belief that
labor troubles are in all cases private matters to be fought out between
the two parties concerned, and come to feel that peaceful means of
adjusting a difficulty should prevail. A rather unusual combination
of circumstances gave the public a chance of showing where it stood,
and it declared unhesitatingly for conciliation.
1 Q. 11575. Do you think that the old method of dealing directly with your men was
preferable to any scheme of either conciliation or arbitration?—A. I do. I have seen a
good deal of it. I have seen deputations attend in the board room, and I have seen them
appear there on practical equality with the chairman and directors of the railway. They
have had freedom of speech, they have had facility of expression, and they have gone
away with substantial benefits.
Q. 11576. But the deciding power was with the chairman of the railway company?—
A. Quite so.
Q. 11577. He was the man who had to decide?—A. He was open to be convinced and
frequently was convinced.
Q. 11578. But still it was a matter for him to decide whether he would be convinced
or not?—A. Yes. He was the custodian of the shareholders’ money.
Q. 11579. You think that was a system that was preferable, both from the railway com
pany’s side and the men’s side, to any scheme, either of conciliation or arbitration?—
A. Well, I have got used to conciliation and arbitration now, but if you had asked me that
question in 1907 I should have said, “Absolutely nothing of the sort is wanted.”
Q. 11580. You are a few years older now ; what do you think now?—A. Well, you would
never get rid of it now.
Q. 11581. You do not like it yet?—A. It is not altogether bad; it is good in parts.
(Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed to investigate and
report on the working of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme of 1907,
p. 476. London, 1911.)

1Q0

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

APPENDIX I.—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION APPOINTED TO IN
VESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE WORKING OF THE RAILWAY CON
CILIATION AND ARBITRATION SCHEME OF 1907.

In the following pages the significant portions of the report of the
royal commission are given in full, the omitted sections being of an
introductory character, reviewing the appointment of the commis
sion, the events leading up to the agreement of 1907, and a brief
synopsis of the agreement of 1907.
T h e A greement of 1907*
OPERATION OF THE SCHEME.

20. Tne putting into operation of entirely new machinery led,
in some instances, to considerable delay, but, on the whole, reasonable
efforts were made by the greater number of the companies to get the
conciliation boards established.
21. As regards the earlier meetings of the boards, there appears to
have been a disposition, on the part of both the companies and the
men, to regard arbitration as the final destination of the matters put
on the agenda. This tendency was no doubt greatly contributed to
by the fact that the men’s demands were on the lines of the “ national
program,” from which the men’s representatives on the boards did
not feel at liberty to depart. It is therefore not surprising that for
the time the methods of negotiation through “ the usual channels ”
between the men and the companies fell, more or less, into abeyance.
No doubt the companies, in accordance with the terms of the agree
ment, required the presentation of the petitions and the holding of
conferences between the men and their officers. But these proceedings
would appear to have been very much a matter of form and to have
been carried out only as a necessary prelude to placing the points of
difference before the sectional board. In many instances reference to
the sectional board seems to have been again a matter of form. Cen
tral board proceedings were much of the same character, and, as
already stated, the final destination of the demands, in many of the
cases which arose in the earlier period of the operation of the scheme,
was arbitration.
22. All this, although it can hardly, in our opinion, be said to have
carried out the intention of the framers of the scheme, is not any
roof that the failure was attributable to the scheme itselr, but merely
emonstrates that the circumstances which prevailed at the time ren
dered very difficult the application of the earlier stages of the scheme,
which depend on conciliation. High hopes were apparently enter
tained by the men as to the result that might come from arbitration.
Prior to the actual hearing before an arbitrator it may almost be con
cluded that the men had never understood, or even heard, what could
be said from the point of view of the railway companies, nor had they
had any conception of the financial consequences of their demands.
23. Even after the arbitration proceedings it is highly probable
that the great majority of the men could not quite appreciate the
fairness of the awards. The men, no doubt, received important and
valuable concessions, but, notwithstanding this, the results of the arbi
trations were at the time, and have since remained, a keen disappoint

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

101

ment. This is easily understood from the short review of the occur
rences which took place from the declaration of the “ national
program ” by the Amalgamated Society of Kailway Servants in 1906
up to the launching of the scheme of 1907.
24. It would serve no purpose to discuss the probabilities as to
what might have happened if the relations between the companies
and the trade unions had admitted, before or at the time of tihe
launching of the “ national program,” of an interchange of ideas as
to its feasibility, but the conclusion might reasonably be drawn that
such an interchange of opinions at that stage would have been at
tended with valuable results.
EVIDENCE OF TRADE-UNION REPRESENTATIVES AND RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.

25. It is alleged that since the introduction of the scheme the
former methods of settlement of differences between the men and the
companies have to a great extent been abandoned, and that whereas
the conciliation boards established under the scheme are only to deal
with questions of wages and hours which can not be mutually settled
through the “ usual channels,” as a matter of practice these channels,
in the case of many companies, have become narrowed almost to dis
appearance.
26. Different rules and methods for the approach by the men to
the companies have prevailed on the various railways, but the general
trend of the evidence of the men is that the preliminary stage of con
ferences with the companies’ authorities is not so much encouraged
and resorted to as formerly. No doubt, before a proposal for change
of hours or wages can be brought before a conciliation board an
application must previously have been made in “ the usual course,”
but it is alleged by the men that the procedure in regard to such appli
cations is not governed by any rule and can be declined and delayed
by the companies on the ground that it does not really represent the
views of any considerable proportion of the men.
27. It is complained by the men that a period of two months for
reply, before any steps can be taken to bring the matter before a
board, is excessive, and that even then a fortnight’s notice must be
given after the secretaries have signed the agenda before the board
can meet. A further cause of delay which is mentioned is that the
secretaries do not always concur as to the contents of the agenda.
28. It is advanced by the men that sectional boards as at present
constituted are in many instances merely formal mediums through
which business is carried to the central boards, that they are presided
over by officers of the companies, and that frequently there is no dis
cussion of the subjects on the agenda.
29. It is alleged that where a section board does not come to a
decision and where the further step of reference to a central board is
taken much delay occurs.
30. The scheme is said to be too limited in its scope, and it is con
tended that it should provide for the consideration of all relations
between railway men and the companies, except those in which dis
cipline and management are concerned.
31. In matters of misconduct or neglect of duty it is alleged that
men do not always get a full opportunity of explaining or stating any
extenuating circumstances before they are punished, and it is con

102

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

tended that the difficulties of making an appeal after punishment are
manifestly much greater than if the opportunity were afforded before
punishment.
32. It is complained that in some companies the temporary and
casual laborers (who have been regarded as not falling within the
scope of the scheme of 1907 and as outside the settlements and awards,
thereunder) are being increased beyond the numbers necessary to
provide for abnormal conditions of traffic.
33. It is urged that the men are placed at a disadvantage by the
rule which obliges them to appoint an employee of the company as
their secretary. They state that a servant of the company, depend
ent both as to position and future prospects, must be more or less
influenced in his duties as secretary and advocate.
34. The men object to arbitration as provided by the scheme on the
grounds of expense, delay, and differences on the subject of interpre
tation of awards. They also strongly object to the long periods for
which the decisions by award are fixed, and many of the witnesses
suggest that any award should be determinable at the end of 12
months from its date by a 3 months’ notice by either party.
35. Complaint is made that where advantages accrued to the men
by the agreements arrived at by the boards or the awards of arbi
trators these advantages were counterbalanced or altogether taken
away by changes in “ management.” The chief instances given are
the reclassification of grades, the employment of men in a lower
grade to discharge the duties of men in a higher grade, the adjust
ment of hours of duty so that Sunday rates of wages and overtime
were avoided, and, where hours of labor were shortened, the arrange
ment of the hours of going on and coming off duty in a way that
spread the period of duty over a greater number of hours.
36. In this connection several witnesses referred to the necessity of
supplying to each grade of men in the permanent employment of the
company a statement of the conditions under which they are em
ployed.
37. The various suggestions made by the men may be briefly enu
merated as follows:
Direct recognition of the trade-unions by the companies.
A central board only, as at present constituted.
Appeal to a national board; various suggestions as to its composi
tion ; general idea, six members, with a chairman, three to be named
by railway companies, three by the trade-unions, and a chairman to
be mutualy agreed upon.
Abolition of central board; all decisions to be come to by sectional
boards.
Appeal to national board, or to three persons, one to be- chosen by
each party, with a chairman to be agreed upon, and, failing agree
ment, to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
Some concur in the proposal that central or sectional boards,
whichever may be decided upon, should be presided over by a neutral
chairman, with a determining authority', while others would give such
authority only on those occasions on which both sides consent.
The demand for the removal of the present restriction that the
secretary must be an employee of the company is common to all these
alternative proposals.

BAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

103

EVIDENCE OF RAILWAY COMPANIES.

38. The evidence of the railway companies traverses generally the
statements made by the men. The companies do not agree that any
delay that occurred in putting the agreement into operation can be
attributed to a desire on their part to deny to the men the advantages
of the scheme. They emphasize strongly that they have carried out
the terms of all awards and agreements and that the changes in mat
ters of management, which the men allege deprive them of the bene
fits granted by awards, were not carried out with that object.
39. They reason that where shorter hours or a relief from Sunday
work are asked for by the men a complaint that earnings are no
longer derived from overtime and extra-duty pay is not tenable.
40. They urge that the absence of discussion at the conciliation
boards was due generally to the avowed inability of the men to de
part from the terms of the “ national program.”
41. As regards the cost to the men of proceedings under the scheme,
the companies reply that they offered to defray the expenses of the
men at all stages of conciliation and arbitration and that the men
refused the offer.
42. The companies concur in thinking that the machinery of the
scheme might be simplified and that the decisions on matters of disa
greement might be arrived at much more speedily. They approve of
the abolition of the central board and agree generally that there
should be a determining authority, easily approachable, if a sectional
board can not come to a settlement.
43. Various suggestions are made as to the form of arbitration.
There appears to be a desire on the part of the companies that arbi
trators should be appointed (with or without assessors) for definite
periods and for certain districts, and that they should be nominated
by agreement or by the Board of Trade.
44. They object strongly to the intervention of any person not be
ing an employee of the company at any stage of conciliation. They
agree, however, that the men should be empowered to select assist
ance and advocacy from any quarter when their case goes before an
arbitrator.
45. The companies strongly urge that, although the agreement of
1907 does not include it as one of its conditions, they were expressly
assured that the question of “ recognition ” was not to be raised dur
ing the term of the agreement, and that it was upon this understand
ing that they agreed to submit to arbitration, as provided in the
agreement, matters which, in their opinion, should be left entirely
under their own control.
46. The companies express very decided opinions as to the restric
tion of operations under the scheme to questions of hours and wages,
and they believe that any expansion of the scheme so as to include
within its scope questions of discipline, management, or general con
ditions of service would most prejudicially affect their obligations to
the public.
47. The companies dwell upon the great importance of arriving at
some method by which security for the observance of contracts and
agreements may be obtained. Most of the witnesses decline to make
suggestions as to the method by which this could be accomplished,

104

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

while some of them express the view that legislative reforms should
be carried out on the subject of picketing, the financial responsibility
of trade-unions, the payment of strike benefit, the extension of the
term of notice to cease work, the adequate proteetion of persons who
desire to work, and the punishment of those against whom a charge
of incitement to breach of contract can be maintained,
COMMENTARY ON EVIDENCE.

Recognition.
48. The most important, if not the main, efforts of the companies
and the men were directed to the question of “ recognition,” and, be
ginning with this question, we now proceed to make some com-r
mentary upon the evidence given by both sides.
49. The position in which the question of recognition was left at
the date or the 1907 agreement is not clear. The negotiations re
sulting in that agreement were conducted through intermediaries;
there were no direct negotiations between the companies and the men.
Whatever may have been understood by the companies, we have no
evidence before us to enable us to say that the men understood it to
be an essential condition of the agreement that the question of recog
nition should not be raised during its term.
50. The representatives of the men ask for recognition; the com
panies strongly object to it in any shape. The exact meaning of the
term as it would be applied in practice is not quite clearly conveyed by
either of the parties. The unions do not all express the same views;
some desire the presence of a trade-union official to help the men in
advocating their case before the officers of the company or before the
directors; others think that their purpose would be served by the ad
mission of the union official to help the men before the conciliation
boards. The existing practice is that trade-union officials are ad
mitted to plead before the arbitrator.
51. The apprehensions of the companies are that recognition as
they interpret it would seriously affect discipline and interfere with
management if men, in approaching their officers or directors on any
subject of grievance or complaint, had the right to bring a union
official with them.
52. We think that with their great responsibilities the companies
can not and should not be expected to permit any intervention be
tween them and their men on the subjects of discipline and manage
ment.
53. The trade-unions press strongly for recognition as representa
tives of the men. No doubt, in some matters and on some occasions,
friendly relations between companies and the representatives or
unions have been both convenient and useful. The witness who ap
peared before us on behalf of the Great Western Railway gave an
illustration of the valuable results which attended his collaboration
with the trade-union official who had conducted the case of the men
before the arbitrator. In that instance many vexed points of inter
pretation were settled quite satisfactorily, and, in our opinion, a more
adoption of this method of negotiation would be helpful to
feneral
oth parties.

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

105

54. In our amended scheme we have provided that the members of
each board shall be at liberty to select a secretary from any source
they may think proper. We mention this in connection with the
subject of recognition, as it may be regarded as pertaining to it.
Allegations of evasion of settlements.
55. The examples of regrading, the establishment of trip rates, and
the other methods of management by which the men were alleged
to have been deprived of the beneficial effects of awards are not
numerous. Some of the companies did take this action, but, assuming
that in doing so they acted in good faith and were within their rights,
the carrying out of these economies at the very time the awards came
into operation was, in our opinion, unfortunate and calculated to
excite feelings of disappointment and irritation.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS OF SCHEME.

56. In our opinion, amendments to the scheme of 1907 should aim
at promptness of settlement, uniformity of procedure, and finality
of decision, and the machinery should be such as is calculated to
secure the confidence of those whose interests are involved in its
operations. It is with this object in view that we make the following
suggestions:
Preliminary procedure.
57. Taking in the order of sequence the various steps by which the
men can ask for a consideration of matters which, in their opinion,
demand rectification, we have, first, the approach to the company. In
our opinion it is of the utmost importance that this preliminary pro
cedure should not only be maintained but facilitated and every effort
be made by both the companies and the men to adjust matters of
difference before the next step is taken.
Sectional but no central boards.
58. All questions affecting hours, wages, or conditions of service,
not settled by negotiation between the parties concerned, should, in
our opinion, be referred to a board of conciliation constituted on lines
similar to the sectional boards in the scheme of 1907 and sufficiently
comprehensive to include all grades engaged in the manipulation of
traffic. The sectional boards are representative, and we are of opin
ion that, with some alteration and addition, these boards can be made
to fulfill the conditions and to carry out the principles of the scheme
of 1907. Having regard to the additional powers which we propose
shall be exercised by sectional boards, we think an entirely new elec
tion of members for the men’s side of the boards should be carried
out forthwith. We think the central board is redundant, and we
propose that it should be abolished.
Grouping of grades.
59. To the form of election to sectional boards no exception has
been taken save, perhaps, in the grouping of the grades forming the
sections. While sympathizing with the desire of certain grades to
31326°—Bull. 98—12-----8

106

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

reduce the number of other grades grouped with them, we believe
that the number of sections on any one railway system should not
exceed eight. All grades engaged in the manipulation of traffic and
in the permanent service of the company should, we think, be in
cluded m some one or other of the sections. Any doubt or difference
as to the inclusion of a grade should be decided by the Board of
Trade, to which department all differences and references on the
subject of grouping grades and forming sections should be submitted
for decision.
Procedure before boards.
60. We propose to provide that any matter dealing with hours,
wages, or conditions of service, except questions of or bearing upon
discipline and management, if not settled by conference between
deputations of the men and the company, shall be placed upon the
agenda paper for reference to a conciliation board to be assembled
under normal circumstances at intervals of six months. The agenda
paper, to be issued 14 days before the meeting of the board, should
be agreed upon and signed by the secretary of the company’s side
and the secretary of the men’s side of the conciliation board.
61. We propose that it shall be competent for either side of a board,
by a 14 days’ notice, to ask for a special meeting, submitting at the
same time the matter to be placed on the agenda. If a difference
should arise as to the necessity for such special meeting, the question
should be referred to the chairman within the 14 days. If he should
decide in favor of holding the meeting, he should also fix the date
upon which it should be held.
62. If a board be not able to come to an agreement either at first
meeting or, if necessary, after adjournment for 14 days, on the appli
cation of either side ox the board, then the chairman should be called
in to preside over a reassembled board and to give a decision which
should be final.
Duties of chairman,
63. An essential element in our proposed scheme is that a chairman,
to be chosen from a panel to be prepared by the Board of Trade,
should be available for each board, and that, as far as practicable, the
same chairman should act for all the boards on a company’s system
during the entire period of office of those boards. He should be
selected by the conciliation boards or, failing agreement, by the
Board of Trade. His fee and expenses should be paid by the Board
of Trade under the provisions of the Conciliation Act, 1896.
64. We further propose that in the event of any difference arising
between the secretary of the company’s side and the secretary of the
men’s side as to the matters to be placed upon the agenda paper, ref
erence should be made to the chairman, whose decision should be
final. Any question of interpretation which can not be settled by the
board should be submitted to the chairman for decision.
Period of settlements,
65. We think that agreements arrived at by a board should have
force for 12 months and be held to continue thereafter until amended,
superseded, or nullified by agreement of a board or by decision of a

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

107

chairman. Decisions by a chairman should have force for two years
and thereafter continue in operation under conditions similar to the
foregoing.
66. We propose that all existing agreements and awards should
remain in force until July 1, 1912, and thereafter continue in opera
tion under conditions similar to the foregoing.
67. We suggest that agreements arrived at by boards should be
final, and that the provision in the scheme of 1907 for a suspensory
period, within which the companies or the men have the option of
rejection, should be deleted.
Duration of new scheme.
68. We propose that the amended scheme shall remain in force
until November 6, 1914, and thereafter be subject to revision or
determination, as regards any given company, by 12 months’ notice
by the company or by a majority of the aggregate representatives
of employees on all the conciliation boards for the company’s system.
69. All agreements and decisions of the chairman in existence at
the period of the determination of the scheme should remain in force
for the full time for which they were made and thereafter until
amended, superseded, or nullified by agreement between the parties
or by such machinery for the settlement of differences as may be
hereafter set up.
Men's secretary.
70. It will be seen that our proposals contemplate final settlements
at boards by conciliation, if possible without a chairman, but, if con
ciliation fail, then by bringing in a chairman. The procedure in the
matter of statements and advocacy will be to a great extent the same
upon each occasion. At present the men can choose an advocate (not
being counsel) to put their case before an arbitrator. We consider
that it is of much importance to the men that the advocate before
the chairman should have had the advantage of a full knowledge of
all the circumstances at the preceding stages of the conciliation board.
We therefore consider that the men should be free, if they think
proper, to combine in the same person the duties of secretary and
advocate at all meetings of the board, and, in furtherance of this
object, we propose that the representatives of the men on each board
shall be at liberty to appoint as their secretary any suitable person,
whether an employee of the company or a person from outside, but
that he shall not have the power to vote unless he shall have been
duly elected a member. This arrangement is not intended to prevent
the men from obtaining the services of a special advocate before the
chairman.
Facilities to he provided hy companies.
71. We think that the men’s secretaries while acting in the dis
charge of their secretarial duties should be offered the privilege of
free traveling over the company’s system. We also think that the
members of boards on the men’s side should be tendered a like privi
lege on producing a summons to attend a meeting.

108

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOK.

Offenses against discipline.
72. Men charged with misconduct, neglect of duty, or other
breaches of discipline should be permitted to state their defense, to
call witnesses, and to advance any extenuating circumstances before
their officers prior to a final decision being arrived at. Where doubts
arise or where serious results to men are likely to follow, the cases
should, we think, be placed before the higher officials of the com
pany. Appeals after punishment lead to a difficult position, and the
necessity for them should be avoided.
Conditions of service.
73. We attach much importance to the subject of “ conditions of
service.” Many misunderstandings would be avoided if each man
in the permanent employment of a railway company could be given
access to a statement of the exact conditions of his service. If this
were done many vexed questions—small, perhaps, in themselves, but
important to individuals—would be greatly minimized.
Applications to Board of Trade.
74. When the assistance of the Board of Trade is asked for, the re
quest should be made by the secretary to the company’s side and the
secretary to the men’s side of the board jointly. If a difficulty should
arise as to the form in which the request is to be made, the matter
should, we think, be referred to the chairman.
Text of proposed new scheme.
75. The above-mentioned proposals will be found incorporated in
the proposed new scheme annexed to our report.
OBSERVANCE OF SETTLEMENTS.

76. In other important industries experience has shown that con
ciliation on similar lines to those we recommend has satisfactorily
settled differences between employers and employed, and we see no
reason why it should not be equally successful on railways, provided
that both sides are prepared to give it a fair trial. To make any
scheme of conciliation effective there should be no organized stop
page of work until the conciliation machinery has been exhausted.
No encouragement or assistance should be given to either side refus
ing to abide by the settlements during the periods of their continu
ance, and full and ample protection should be given to those who
desire to observe them.
77. It is clear that however satisfactory machinery may be, how
ever reasonable the settlement, all goes for nothing if a contract once
entered into be not loyally observed.
78. Witnesses have suggested the applicability to railway em
ployees of section 4 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property
Act, the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and the pro
visions contained in a bill presented to Parliament by Mr. Crooks,
M. P., and others. It is not for us to prescribe how the adherence

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

109

to contracts can be encouraged; how the breach of them can be penal
ized. Men have the right to determine their engagement by giving
a lawful notice, but in the exercise of their freedom in this respect
they should not, in our opinion, be permitted to incite or coerce by
threats, or by any form of intimidation, men who desire to give their
labor.
MATTERS OUTSIDE THE SCHEME.

79. We confidently hope that the suggestions we have made and
the amendments we propose in the scheme of 1907 may lead to the
overcoming of many difficulties which may hereafter arise in nego
tiations and in arriving at settlements between the railway companies
and their employees.
80. We can not, however, overlook the fact that strikes have taken
place under circumstances which had no connection with the con
tract for hours, wages, or general conditions of service, nor, indeed,
with the concerns of either the strikers or their employers. The
scheme of 1907 does not meet such cases, nor do we believe it can be
made to meet them. We had proposed to make suggestions for the
alleviation of such difficulties, but the recent establishment of the
industrial council by Your Majesty’s Government renders our obser
vations unnecessary.
CONCLUSION.

81. In humbly submitting these, our views, we beg Your Majesty’s
gracious permission to travel for an instant out of the terms of our
reference. The railway service of the United Kingdom is second to
none. The public regards its railway system with pride and confi
dence. That system has been built upon great traditions and high
ideals, and it is the privilege of every railway man in the Kingdom,
of every class and grade, to participate in and to contribute toward
the great trust with which he has been invested. We think we ex
press the general opinion when we say that if railway men will only
place the call of duty above and before every other consideration
they may confidently rely upon the British public to support them
in any fair claim fairly put.
APPENDIX II.—SCHEME FOR DEALING WITH QUESTIONS AFFECTING
WAGES, HOURS, OR CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
ENGAGED IN MANIPULATION OF TRAFFIC.

Following is given the text of the proposed new scheme of con
ciliation and arbitration as suggested in the report of the royal com
mission of 1911. The scheme as here given is as recommended by the
commission:
STEPS PRELIMINARY TO THE BRINGING OF BUSINESS BEFORE CONCILIATION BOARDS.

1. Unless otherwise mutually arranged the procedure laid down in paragraphs
2 to 8 shall be adopted.
2. If the employees forming a grade, or combination of grades having a
common interest, wish to bring to the notice of the company a matter affecting
their rates of wages, hours of labor, or conditions of service, or (at this stage)
any questions affecting the contractual relations between the company and its

110

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

employees, a petition shall be presented signed by at least 25 per cent of those
concerned. The petition shall name a suitable number of employees of the com
pany whom the petitioners desire to form a deputation. The company shall
receive the deputation and shall give a reply to the petitioners within 28 days
of its reception.
3. In the case of a matter which affects one or more individuals, as dis
tinguished from a grade, or concerns one depot only, the application may be
made, either orally or in writing, by those affected to the immediate superior
of the men, and the company may designate a local superintending officer to
hear the applicants, the reply of the company to the application to be made
within 28 days of the conference with the applicants.
4. In the event of the company’s reply in either case not being acceptable, or
of no reply being received within the stipulated period, it shall be open to the
deputation to require any question relating to rates of wages, hours of labor, or
conditions of service, other than matters of management or discipline, to be
referred to the appropriate conciliation board, by written application to the
secretary of the employees’ side of that board.
5. In the event of the company proposing to reduce the rates of wages, or to
increase the hours of labor, or otherwise alter the conditions of service of a
class of employees, notice of the proposals shall be given in writing to the sec
retaries of the conciliation board or boards which include the grades affected.
Such notice shall specify a period of not less than 28 days within which ob
jection, if any, to the proposals must be made.
6. In the event of 25 per cent of the employees concerned presenting within
the specified period a petition stating their unwillingness to accept the com
pany’s proposals, a deputation of employees shall be received by the company to
discuss the matters at issue, and the deputation shall notify their acceptance or
otherwise of the company’s original proposals, or such modification as may
have been suggested meantime by the company, within 28 days of the reception
of the deputation. If the company’s original or modified proposals be not ac
cepted by the deputation, it shall be open to the company to require the matter
to be referred to the appropriate conciliation board.
7. For the purpose of the time limits set out in the preceding rules the months
of August and September shall not be counted.
8. Petitions and deputations from the employees and proposals by the com
pany shall, when practicable, be made at such dates as, failing agreements
between the parties direct, will admit of the subjects of difference being placed
on the agenda of the next ordinary meetings of the conciliation boards.
ESTABLISHMENT AND CONSTITUTION OF CONCILIATION BOABDS.

9. There shall be established on each railway a suitable number of concilia
tion boards to deal with questions referred to them relating to the rates of
wages, hours of labor, or conditions of service, other than matters of manage
ment or discipline of all wage-earning employees engaged in the manipulation
of traffic and in the permanent service of the company.
E m ployees ’ rep resen ta tiv es .
10. For this purpose the various grades of the employees of the company who
have a common interest and are covered by this scheme shall be grouped in a
suitable number of sections, and the area served by the company shall be di
vided, if necessary, for the purposes of election into a number of suitable
districts.
11. The employees belonging to each section shall elect, from among them
selves, one or more representatives for each district, such representatives to
form the employees’ side of a conciliation board to deal with matters coming
within the scope of this scheme and affecting employees included in the section.
12. The grouping of grades into sections, the division of the company’s system
into areas, and the number of representatives of employeees shall, in the first
instance, follow the existing arrangements for sectional boards under the
railway conciliation and arbitration scheme of 1907.
13. The first election of employees’ representatives shall be held as soon as
possible, and existing conciliation boards under the scheme of 1907 shall cease
to exist from the dates of the declaration by the Board of Trade of the results
of the elections of employees’ representatives to the new boards to be estab
lished under this scheme.

BAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

I ll

14. All elections of representatives of the employees shall be held under the
supervision of the Board of Trade, and the following rules shall apply:
{a ) Candidates must be employed in the section and district for which they
desire to stand.
(&) Nomination papers proposing candidates for the various boards shall
be sent to the Board of Trade not later than a specified day.
(c ) Each nomination paper shall be signed by not less than 20 adult em
ployees belonging to the candidate’s section and district.
(d ) The Board of Trade, after satisfying themselves that the nomination
papers are in order, shall prepare voting papers and arrange for them to be
circulated among the adult employees on a given pay day.
(c) The Board of Trade shall receive and count the voting papers.
(/) For the purpose of these rules “ adult ” means a person of not less than
20 years of age.
C om pany's rep resen ta tiv es .
15. The company shall furnish to the Board of Trade, not later than the date
on which the men’s voting papers are to be counted, a list for each conciliation
board of the persons in the permanent employ of the company from among whom
the company will select its representatives on the conciliation board. Such list
must specify at least two persons who will have permanent seats on the com
pany’s side of the board. The remaining seats on the company’s side may be
filled by any of the persons named in the company’s panel of representatives
for the board in question, provided always that at no time shall the total
number of representatives present on the company’s side exceed the total mem
bership of the employees’ side of the board.
P u blica tion o f nam es o f m em bers .
16. The Board of Trade shall publish for each board, with as little delay as
possible, the names of the members elected to represent the employees and the
names of the persons forming the company’s panel of representatives, specify
ing those of the latter who are to have permanent seats.
T erm o f office.

17. The term of office of the first boards established under this scheme shall
expire on November 6, 1914. Should the scheme be continued each subsequent
board shall have a term of three years from the date of publication by the
Board of Trade of the names of members of such board.
C asual vacancies.

18. Casual vacancies on the employees’ side of a conciliation board through
death, resignation, or loss of qualification shall be filled by cooptation by the
remaining members of that side, the coopted member to be a permanent em
ployee of the company in the section and district represented by his predecessor.
Similar vacancies on the company’s side shall be filled by the company.
M odification o f sectio n sf d istric ts , and num ber o f rep resen ta tives.
19. Any class of employees falling within the scope of this scheme, but not
included at the outset in any conciliation board, may make application to the
company, by means of a petition signed by at least 25 per cent of their number,
to be included in an existing board or to have a new board established. The
company shall thereupon arrange to receive a deputation of the petitioners with
a view to the decision of the matter, which, in the event of no agreement being
arrived at, shall be referred to the Board of Trade.
20. Any class of employees wishing to be transferred from one board to another
existing board, or to a new board, may make application to the company by
petition signed by at least 25 per cent of their number, and the petition shall
be dealt with in the manner indicated in the preceding paragraph.
21. All differences with regard to the definition or modification of sections,
districts, or number of representatives of employees, which can not be settled
by agreement, shall be determined by the Board of Trade.

112

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,
OFFICERS OF BOARDS.

C hairm an .

22. There shall be for each conciliation board a chairman, who shall not be a
director of any railway company in the United Kingdom or in the service of
any such company. The chairman of a conciliation board shall be selected
from a panel to be constituted by the Board of Trade.
23. As soon as the conciliation boards on a company’s system have been
established, and from time to time when necessary, the employees’ side of each
board shall select two of their number to be invested with plenary powers, who
shall attend a special combined meeting with an equal or less number of rep
resentatives of the company for the purpose of selecting, from the panel men
tioned in paragraph 22, the name of a chairman to be suggested to the Board
of Trade for appointment. In the event of failure to agree, the Board of Trade
shall nominate the chairman.
24. On each occasion that the services of a chairman are required at a meet
ing of a conciliation board, as provided in paragraph 41 of this scheme, he shall
be appointed under the Conciliation Act, 1896, and the same chairman shall act
for all the conciliation boards established on a company’s system during the
entire period of office of those boards whenever practicable.
L eadin g m em bers .
25. Each side of a conciliation board shall select its own leading member from
among the members of the side. The leading members of the two sides shall,
in the absence of the chairman of the board, preside alternately at the meet
ings unless otherwise mutually arranged.
26. In case of emergency, and in the event of the secretary of a side not being
available, the leading member of that side shall perform the duties of secre
tary.
S ecretaries.

27. Each side of a conciliation board shall have a secretary, who may take
part in discussions and act as advocate, if desired, but shall have no vote unless
he is a member of the board.
28. The company’s secretary of each conciliation board shall be appointed by
the company from any source it pleases.
29. The employees’ secretary shall be chosen by a majority of the employees’
side of the conciliation board, who may select him from any source they please,
and shall determine the length and conditions of his office, subject to the pro
visions of this scheme.
PROCEDURE.

O rdin a ry m eetin gs .

30. Every conciliation board shall hold two ordinary meetings a year at
intervals of six months.
31. The date of an ordinary meeting shall be fixed by the secretaries of the
board or, failing agreement, by the chairman.
32. At least 14 days’ notice of the meeting shall be given by each secretary
to the members of his own side.
33. The agenda shall be agreed upon and signed by the secretaries of the
two sides of the board, and shall be issued 14 days before the meeting.
Special m eetings.

34. Either side of a conciliation board may, by letter addressed to the secre
tary of the other side, ask for a special meeting to be held within 14 days,
the request for a meeting to be accompanied by a statement of the matters to
be placed on the agenda.
35. Should a difference arise as to the date of the special meeting, or as to the
necessity of holding it, the difference shall be referred by the two secretaries
to the chairman within the 14 days mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The chairman shall then fix the date of the meeting, if any is to be held.

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

113

36. No meeting shall be held In August or September, except by mutual
consent.
A genda .
37. Any difference arising between the two secretaries as to the matters to
be placed on the agenda shall be referred to the chairman for his decision.
38. No question not on the agenda shall be brought up at any meeting except
with the consent of both sides.
M ethod of dealing w ith application s.

39. No proposal for an alteration of rates of wages, hours of labor, or con
ditions of service shall be entertained by a conciliation board until the pro
posal has been dealt with in the manner set out in paragraphs 1-8. aud the
company and the employees concerned have failed to come to agreement by
direct negotiation.
40. In the event of such failure to agree on a matter competent to be dealt
With under this scheme, the matter may be placed on the agenda for the
next ordinary meeting of the appropriate conciliation board by the side repre
senting the party which made the proposal, and it shall be considered at such
meeting unless previously withdrawn or placed on the agenda for a special
meeting.
41. In the event of the two sides failing to agree at the first meeting at
which a matter is considered, it shall be open to either side to adjourn the
meeting for 14 days. If no agreement is reached at the adjourned meeting, or
if neither side asks for such adjourned meeting, the chairman of the board
shall be called in to preside over a reassembled board, and to give a decision
on the matter, if the parties can not be reconciled.
42. At meetings presided over by the chairman, either side may, if it desires,
have the services of a special advocate, who is neither member nor secretary
of the board, but counsel shall not be engaged.
R ecords of proceedings.

43. A record of every meeting of the board shall be agreed upon and entered
in duplicate minute books, one to be kept by each secretary, and signed by both.
Each secretary shall circulate a copy of the record among those represented by
his side of the board, in such manner as may be determined by the side.
DECISIONS OF BOARDS.

V oting by sides.

44. Each side of a conciliation board shall vote separately and, in the absence
of the chairman, all decisions shall be arrived at by agreement between the
two sides.
F unction of chairm an.

45. At meetings at which the chairman is present he shall endeavor to bring
the two sides into accord, and, failing this, shall, either at the meeting or
within a reasonable time thereafter, give a decision on any matter still at issue.
D ecision s to be final.

46. All settlements arrived at, whether by agreement of the two sides or by
the decision of the chairman, shall be final and binding, for their periods of
operation, on both the company and the employees, the ratification of neither
of these parties being required.
DURATION OF SETTLEMENTS.

E x istin g settlem en ts .
47. All settlements at present in operation, whether arrived at by agreement
by conciliation boards under the scheme of 1907 or by arbitration under that
scheme, shall remain in force until July 1, 1912, and thereafter until they are
varied, superseded, or nullified by decisions of conciliation boards or chairmen
under the present scheme.

114

BULLETIN OF THE BUBEAU OF LABOR.

48. Notwithstanding the terms of any settlement by agreement or by arbitra
tion under the scheme of 1907, it shall be competent under the present scheme to
reopen, after July 1, 1912, any question dealt with in those settlements.
F u tu re settlem en ts under th e presen t schem e .
49. Settlements arrived at by agreement between the two sides of a concilia
tion board shall have effect for at least 12 months.
50. Settlements by decision of the chairman of a board shall have effect for
at least two years.
51. In either case settlements shall be held to continue in operation beyond
the minimum period above specified until they are varied, superseded, or nulli
fied by decision of the conciliation board arrived at by agreement or by decision
of the chairman.
52. Settlements, whether by agreement or by decision of the chairman, may
be varied at any time (before or after the expiration of the minimum periods
above mentioned) by mutual consent of the two sides of the board.
DURATION OF SCHEME.

53. The present scheme shall remain in operation until November 6, 1914,
and thereafter be subject to revision or determination, as regards any given
company, by 12 months’ notice given by the company, or by a majority of the
aggregate representatives of employees on all the conciliation boards for the
company’s system. The earliest date at which such notice may be given is
November 6, 1913.
54. All settlements in force at the period of determination of the scheme shall
continue in operation for the period for which they were made, and thereafter
until varied, superseded, or nullified by agreement between the company and
the employees, or by such machinery for the settlement of differences as may
be hereafter established.
CODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.

55. Lists showing the existing rates of wages, hours of labor, and all other
conditions of service of the various grades of employees covered by this
scheme shall be prepared as soon as possible by the company, and printed in a
suitable form at its expense.
56. These lists shall form the basis of the contract between the company and
its employees, and copies thereof shall be exhibited by the company without
delay in places where they may readily be consulted by the employees con
cerned, in order that every employee may know precisely what are the condi
tions of his service.
EXPENSES.

57. Secretaries of conciliation boards shall be allowed free traveling on the
company’s system when engaged in the execution of their secretarial duties.
58. All members of a conciliation board shall be allowed free traveling on
the company’s system for the purpose of attending meetings of a board.
59. A statement of the results of the election of employees’ representatives
to a conciliation board, the agenda papers, the records of proceedings, and the
text of the agreements arrived at, having been prepared and signed by the two
secretaries, shall be printed and posted up at the depots, stations, etc., in such
a manner as to be accessible for examination by the employees of the company.
Copies shall also be supplied to each member of the board. All this shall be
done at the company’s expense.
INTERPRETATION.

In terp reta tio n o f settlem en ts.

60. Any differences which may arise as to the interpretation of settlements,
whether airived at by agreement between the two sides of a conciliation board
or by decision of the chairman, shall in the first instance be considered by the
two secretaries, and in case of difference be referred to the board, which shall
be summoned within 14 days.

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

115

61. Requests by employees for interpretation by a conciliation board shall be
made through the secretary of the employees’ side, who shall decline them or
bring them before the board in accordance with general or special directions
from the employees’ side of the board.
62. Applications by the company for interpretation by a conciliation board
shall be made through the secretary of the company’s side of the board.
68. Any questions of interpretation, on which the board fail to agree, shall
be dealt with at an adjourned meeting at which the chairman shall be present,
the decision of the chairman on points of difference to be final.
In terp reta tio n of schem e.

64. If any question should arise as to the interpretation of this scheme it
shall be decided by the Board of Trade.
65. Requests for interpretation of the scheme shall be signed by both sec
retaries of the board concerned. In the event of disagreement the chairman
shall confer with the secretaries and settle the form of application to the Board
of Trade.
T h e R ailw ay C onference A greement of D ecember 11, 1911, S u p
plem entary to th e S chem e S uggested by the R oyal C ommission
for D ealing w ith Q uestions A ffecting W ages , H ours , or C on
ditions of S ervice of R ailw ay E mployees E ngaged in the
M anipulatio n of T raffic .
In furtherance of an agreement signed at the Board of Trade on August 19,
1911, and of the report of the royal commission appointed to investigate and
report on the working of the railway conciliation and arbitration scheme of
1907, it was agreed by the undersigned, on behalf of the railway companies
in Great Britain who have adopted the conciliation scheme of 1907, and of
the joint executives of the trade unions of railway employees, and of the
Government and the Board of Trade, that the report and scheme of the royal
commission be accepted and adopted with the following alterations and
additions:
A.—It was agreed that the form of procedure as laid down in clauses 2 to 8
be adopted, subject to the following modifications:
Clause 2. The last sentence to read as under: “ The company shall receive
the deputation within 14 days from the receipt of the petition and shall give
a reply in writing to the petitioners within 28 days of the reception of the
deputation.”
With regard to the signing of the petition by at least 25 per cent of those
concerned, it was agreed that each company shall settle with its employees the
question of percentage.
For this purpose a special meeting of each conciliation board shall be con
vened.
Failing agreement between the two sides of the board the percentage of 25
laid down in the scheme to apply.
Clause 3. The words “ either orally or,” in lines 2 and 3, to be deleted.
The following words to be inserted after the word “ applicants ” in the fourth
line: “ Within 14 days of the receipt of the application.”
The words “ in writing ” to be inserted after the word “ made ” in the fifth
line.
Clauses 5 and 6 to be deleted and the following clauses to take their place:
Clause 5. In the event of the company proposing to reduce the rates of wages,
or to increase the hours of labor, or otherwise alter adversely the conditions
of service (other than matters of management or discipline) of a class of
employees, the company shall circularize the men concerned, stating what their
proposals are and giving notice that the proposal will be placed on the agenda
for the next appropriate meeting of the conciliation board. Such circular to be
issued to the staff not less than one month before the date of the meeting of the
conciliation board at which the proposal will be considered.
Clause 6. If the company find it necessary to reduce the rates of wages or
increase the hours of labor or adversely alter the conditions of service of any

116

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

individual or individuals, as distinct from a class of employees, they shall be
at liberty to do so, subject to the man or men concerned having the right (if
he or they feel aggrieved) to refer the question, unless it is one relating to
matters of management or discipline, to the next meeting of the conciliation
board.
If, at the meeting of such board, it is determined that the alteration was not
reasonable the matter shall be adjusted as from the date the alteration was
made.
B. —It was agreed that clause 13 should be altered to read as under:
“ In those cases where the elections of employees’ representatives have taken
place during the year 1911 the term of office of such boards shall expire on
November 6, 1914, except in those cases where it is found necessary to reor
ganize the grades coming under the existing boards. Elections under these
conditions, and also in the case of boards not yet formed or not reelected
during 1911, shall be held as soon as possible.”
It was agreed that the first meeting of the conciliation boards established
under this scheme should not be held prior to May., 1912, except so far as the
special meetings necessary to decide the percentage referred to in minute A
(clause 2) are concerned. At the first meetings held in May, 1912, it shall be
competent to raise for discussion, after the usual procedure laid down in
clauses 2, 3, and 4 of the scheme has been carried out, any matter included
in settlements at present in operation, subject to the proviso that no alteration
in such settlements shall operate before July 1, 1912, as laid down in clause 47
of the scheme. Clause 48 to be deleted.
C. —Clause 14. It was agreed that the following note should be added to para
graph (C) in this clause:
“ The board of trade have, in their discretion in the case of small companies,
modified the number of adult employees required to sign the nomination papers.
This discretion to be continued.”
D. —Clause 15. It was agreed that the words “ in the permanent employ of
the company,” in line 3, should be read as imposing no restriction on directors
sitting upon the boards.
E. —Clause 18. It was agreed that cooptation should be employed in the case
of vacancies caused by an insufficient number of candidates being properly
nominated for election.
F. —Clauses 25 and 29. It was agreed that in the event of the employees’
side of a conciliation board being unable to agree upon the selection of its lead
ing member or secretary, the question shall be referred to the Board of Trade,
who will either decide the matter or take a ballot of the whole of the men
employed in the grades represented by the board.
G. —Clause 43. It was agreed that the record of meetings entered in the
duplicate minute books shall be signed by the leading members of both sides
as well as by the secretaries.
H. —It was agreed that clause 48 should be deleted.
I. —Upon the representatives of the men’s side raising the question of the
alteration of trip rates by the railway companies, it was explained that the
companies must retain the right to vary trip rates according to varying cir
cumstances, but it was stated that in case of the men not being satisfied as
to the reasonableness of any such alteration of trip rates in a downward direc
tion, the matter could be referred in the ordinary course to the next meeting
of the conciliation board, it being understood that if it was determined that
such a reduction was not reasonable, the matter should be adjusted from the
date of the alteration.
JOINT STAFF.

J.—It was agreed that joint staff, where there is no separate conciliation
board, shall be allocated to one or other of the owning companies for election
purposes, and that so far as alteration in their rates of wages, hours of duty,
and conditions of service are concerned, they shall be dealt with through those
conciliation boards as though they formed part of the staff of the company to
which they were allocated, it being understood that in those cases where the
joint staff are under the supervision of a joint officer all applications shall, in
the ordinary course, be submitted to such joint officer.
In those cases where the joint staff are not under the control of a .joint
officer, it is understood that they should participate in any improved conditions,
which may be granted as the result of a petition dealing with the whole of

RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

117

the grade to which they belong throughout the company’s line to which they
are allocated.
In addition to the above alterations, it was agreed, on behalf of the companies
whose representatives were present at the conference, that extra and casual
men employed in the manipulation of goods traffic shall be paid for the time
actually worked at hourly rates on a basis not lower than the minimum rate of
wages and hours of duty of the permanent men working in similar positions.
The representatives of the companies further undertook to use their good
offices to get other companies to adopt the same arrangement.
[Signed on behalf of the railway companies, the joint executives of the trade
unions of railway employees, and of the Government and the Board of Trade.]
APPENDIX III.—AGREEMENTS IN REGARD TO A SCHEME FOR CONCILIA
TION AND ARBITRATION IN QUESTIONS RELATING TO RATES OF WAGES
AND HOURS OF LABOR OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES,
SIGNED AT THE BOARD OF TRADE ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1907.
I . — A g r e em en t S ig n e d

R e p r e se n t a t iv e s

C e r t a in R a il w a y C o m p a n ie s .

The undersigned duly authorized representatives of the railway companies
named below declare that they are prepared on their behalf to adopt a system
of conciliation and arbitration for the settlement of questions relating to the
rates of wages and hours of labor of various classes of their employees, on the
general lines of the scheme appended to this agreement.
They will also use their good offices to induce the other railway companies
to adhere to this agreement. Such adherence may be notified at any time within
the next three months.
[Signed by railway officials and countersigned by officials of the Board of
Trade.]
II. —L is t of R a il w a y C o m p a n ie s o n W h o s e B e h a l f t h e A bove A g r e em en t
W a s A ccepted .
Caledonian Railway Co.
Great Central Railway Co.
Great Eastern Railway Co.
Great Northern Railway Co.
Great Western Railway Co.
Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Co.
London & North Western Railway Co.
London & South Western Railway Co.
London, Brighton & South Coast Railway Co.
Midland Railway Co. .
South Eastern & Chatham Railway Co/s managing committee.
III. —A g r e em en t S ig n e d b y R e p r e se n t a t iv e s of t h e A m a lg a m a te d S o c ie ty of
R a il w a y S e r v a n t s .

The undersigned duly authorized representatives of the Amalgamated Society
of Railway Servants accept, on behalf of its members, the terms of the agree
ment with regard to conciliation and arbitration signed this day at the Board
of Trade by the representatives of the railway companies.
[Signed by trade-union officials and countersigned by officials of the Board
of Trade.]
IV.—O u t l in e of S c h e m e for C o n c il ia t io n a n d A r b it r a t io n .
GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

(a) Boards to be formed for each railway company which adheres to the
scheme to deal with questions referred to them, either by the company or its
employees, relating to the rates of wages and hours of labor of any class of
employees to which the scheme applies, which can not be mutually settled
through the usual channels.
(b) The various grades of the employees of the company who are covered
by the scheme to be grouped for this purpose in a suitable number of sections,
and the area served by the company to be divided, if necessary, for purposes
of election, into a number of suitable districts.

BULLETIN OF THE BUEEAU OF LABOE.

118

(a) The employees belonging to each section so grouped to choose from among
themselves one or more representatives for each district, these representatives
to form the employees’ side of a sectional board to meet representatives of the
company to deal with rates of wages and hours of labor exclusively affecting
grades of employees within that section.
(d ) The first election of representatives to be conducted in a manner set
out in the rules of procedure. Subsequent elections to be regulated by the
boards themselves.
( e ) Where a sectional board fails to arrive at a settlement, the question to
be referred on the motion of either side to the central conciliation board, con
sisting of representatives of the company and one or more representatives
chosen from the employees’ side of each sectional board.
(/) In the event of the conciliation boards being unable to arrive at an agree
ment, or the board of directors or the men failing to carry out the recommenda
tions, the subject of difference to be referred to arbitration. The reference shall
be to a single arbitrator appointed by agreement between the two sides of the
board, or in default of agreement to be appointed by the speaker of the House
of Commons and the master of the rolls, or in the unavoidable absence or
inability of one of them to act, then by the remaining one. The decision of the
arbitrator shall be binding on all parties.
DUBATION OF SCHEME.

The present scheme to be in force until 12 months after notice has been given
by one side to the other to terminate it. No such notice to be given within
six years of the present date.
INTERPRETATION.

If any question should arise as to the interpretation of this scheme, it shall
be decided by the Board of Trade or, at the request of either party, by the
master of the rolls.
O u t l in e

S ugg ested C o n s t it u t io n

and

P rocedure

C o n c il ia t io n B o a r d s .

N. B.—The following outline is intended as a general “ model,” to be amended
in detail to suit the circumstances of particular companies:
CONSTITUTION OF BOARDS OF CONCILIATION.

Boards to be constituted in the first place for the more important sections
(the list to be subject to modification to suit particular railways) :
The following are suggested merely as examples—
R a ilw a y A.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Locomotive drivers, firemen, and cleaners.
Signalmen, pointsmen, etc.
Permanent-way men, plate layers, etc.
Traffic department men other than signalmen.
R a ilw a y B .

(1) Locomotive drivers, firemen, and cleaners.

(2) Signalmen and pointsmen.
(3) Goods guards and shunters.
(4) Passenger-department guards, ticket examiners, shunters, and porters.
(5) Telegraph and permanent way.
(6) Goods checkers, porters, carmen, vanmen, stablemen, and laborers.
N ote .—Variations may be made in the above classification, care being taken
to provide, so far as possible, for the inclusion of other grades of wage-earning
employees engaged in the manipulation of traffic on one or other of the boards.
If the employees belonging to any section not included at the outset should
desire hereafter to participate in the scheme, they may make application to the
central board, which, if it thinks desirable, may either admit them to an existing
sectional board or arrange for the constitution of a new board.

The electoral district to be based, so far as practicable, on districts already

in existence for the purpose of the railway company (e. g., district superinten

BAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

119

dents’ or district goods managers’ districts), whicli may, if necessary, be
grouped for the purpose.
N o te .—It seems desirable that the districts should be as few as possible
(preferably not more than four, and in no case exceeding six), in order to admit
of two operative representatives instead of only one being elected for each
district on each board. This will give opportunity for variety of representation,
(e. g., for a fireman as well as an engine driver to be elected on board 1, without
unduly increasing the number of members of the boards.)
The term of office of a conciliation board to be three years. Casual vacancies
through death, resignation, or loss of qualification to be filled by cooptation
by the remaining members on the same side of the board.
ELECTION OF CONCILIATION BOARDS.

The following rules to apply to the first election. Subsequent elections to be
regulated by the conciliation boards themselves:
(1) Nomination papers proposing candidates for the various boards, signed
by not less than 20 adult employees belonging to the same section and district,
to be sent to the Board of Trade on or before a date to be arranged.
(2) The board, after satisfying themselves that the nominations are in order,
to prepare voting papers and arrange for them to be circulated to the adult
employees on a given pay day.
(3) The Board of Trade to receive and count the voting papers of the men,
and also to receive from the company a list of its proposed representatives on
the various boards.1 The result to be published with as little delay as possible.
Note.—For the purpose of these rules “ adult ” means a person aged 20 and
upwards.
PROCEDURE.

Each side of a conciliation board to select its own chairman.
Every board to meet for business as required at the request of either side. A
fortnight’s notice to be given of all meetings. No meeting shall be called in
August or September.
Meetings to be convened by the secretary, who shall be appointed by agree
ment between the two sides of the board. Failing agreement each side to ap
point a secretary from among the employees of the company. The agenda to be
circulated with the notices, and no question not on the agenda be biought up
except with the consent of both sides.
Each side of a board to vote separately, and all decisions to be arrived at by
agreement between the two sides.
MODE OF DEALING WITH APPLICATIONS.

Before a conciliation board can entertain any proposal for a change in the
rates of wages or hours of labor of any class of employees, an application for
such change must previously have been made in the usual course through the
officers of the department concerned.
After any such application has been made by the employees they shall be in
formed, as soon as practicable, and in any case within two months, of the com
pany’s decision with regard to the request or of their desire to refer it to a
conciliation board. In the event of the decision not being accepted or of no
reply being received within the specified time, the men may require the matter
to be referred to a conciliation board, which shall be at once convened to con
sider the matter so referred.
Note.—For the purpose of this rule, the months of August and September
shall not count.
Any proposal agreed to by a conciliation board involving increased expendi
ture shall be placed before the directors for their acceptance at their next ordi
nary board meeting, or, if that meeting takes place within a week of the pro
posal, then at the next meeting but one, and failing this shall be referred
forthwith to arbitration.
Any proposal agreed to by a conciliation board involving a reduction of rates
of wages shall be communicated to the men, and if rejected by them within a
month shall be referred forthwith to arbitration.
1 It is desirable that at least one of the company’s representatives on each board should
be a director.

120

BULLETIN OF THE BUKEAU OF LABOB.

Subject to the above provisos the decision of a conciliation board to be final
and binding on the parties, and no decision to be reopened within 12 months.
Where a sectional board fails to arrive at a settlement, the question to be
referred on the motion of either side to the central conciliation board.
Should the central conciliation board fail to agree, the question to go forth
with to arbitration at the request of either party.
Proceedings before the arbitrator shall be regulated by him, including the
period during which the award shall be binding.
EXPENSES.

In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the expenses of arbitration
proceedings and conciliation boards to be divided equally between the company
and its employees.
Note.—It is agreed that in order to keep procedure simple and inexpensive,
counsel should not appear in these cases.
Y .— N otice of A d h e s io n to t h e S c h e m e S ig n e d b y R e p r e se n t a t iv e s
A sso c ia t e d S o c ie ty of L ocom otive E n g in e e r s a n d F ir e m e n .

of t h e

On behalf of the members of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers
and Firemen, we accept the arrangements entered into to-day at the Board of
Trade.
[Signed by the secretary and two members of the society.]
VI.—N otice of A d h e s io n to t h e S c h e m e sig n e d b y R e p r e se n t a t iv e of t h e
G e n e r a l R a il w a y W o r k er s ’ U n io n .

On behalf of the members of the General Railway Workers’ Union, I accept
the arrangements agreed to to-day at the Board of Trade.
[Signed by the general secretary of the union.]
APPENDIX IV.—CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SCHEME FOR THE SET
TLEMENT OF QUESTIONS RELATING TO RATES OF WAGES AND HOURS
OF LABOR BETWEEN THE CALEDONIAN RAILWAY CO. AND THEIR EM
PLOYEES.
FORMATION OF CONCILIATION BOARDS.

1. Conciliation boards, consisting of representatives of the company and their
employees, shall be formed to deal with questions referred to them, either by
the company or by their employees, relating to the rates of wages and hours of
labor of the grades of employees after mentioned which can not be mutually
settled through the usual channels.
2. The conciliation boards shall be the following; that is to say—
(1) A sectional conciliation board for each section, in which the various
grades of employees shall be grouped as after mentioned.
(2) A central conciliation board.
3. For the purpose of the election of representatives of the employees to the
sectional boards, the various grades of employees shall be grouped in seven
sections, as specified in the first schedule hereto, and the territory served by
the company shall be divided into four districts, as specified in that schedule.
4. The employees belonging to each such section employed in each district
shall choose from among themselves two representatives for each district, and
the eight representatives so chosen shall form the employees’ side of each sec
tional board.
5. The employees’ side of the central board shall consist of 14 representa
tives, of whom 2 shall be chosen by and from the employees’ side of each
sectional board.
6. The company’s representatives on each sectional board and the central
board shall not exceed in number the employees’ representatives. ,
7. The term of office of a conciliation board shall be three years.
el e c t io n of e m p l o y e e s ’ r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s o n

CONCILIATION BOARDS.

8. Employees under 20 years of age will not be eligible as representatives on
any board, "nor entitled to nominate candidates or to vote in any election.

KAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

121

9. The first election of representatives to form the employees’ side of the
sectional boards shall be conducted in a manner set out in the second schedule
hereto. Subsequent elections shall be regulated by the central board.
FUNCTIONS OF CONCILIATION BOARDS.

10. The sectional boards shall deal with rates of wages and hours of labor
exclusively affecting the grades of employees in the sections for which the re
spective sectional boards have been formed.
11. Before a sectional board can entertain any proposal for a change in the
rates of wages or hours of labor of the grades of employees in the section, an
application for such change must previously have been made in the usual
course through the officers of the department concerned.
12. After any such application has been made by the employees they shall
be informed as soon as practicable, and, in any case, within two months, of the
company’s decision with regard to the request or of the company’s desire to
refer the proposal to the appropriate sectional board. In the event of the
company’s decision not being accepted, or of no reply being received within the
prescribed time, the employees may require the matter to be referred to the
appropriate sectional board.
13. Where a sectional board fails to arrive at a settlement, the question
shall be referred, on the motion of either side, to the central board.
14. Where the central board fails to arrive at a settlement, the question shall
be referred, on the motion of either side, to arbitration.
15. Any proposal agreed to by a sectional board, or by the central board,
involving an increase of rates of wages, shall be placed before the directors
of the company for their acceptance at their next ordinary board meeting, or,
if that meeting takes place within a week of the proposal, then at the next
meeting but one, and, failing its acceptance by the directors, shall be referred
as follows, that is to say—
(1) A proposal agreed to by a sectional board and not accepted by the
directors shall be referred to the central board; and
(2) A proposal agreed to by the central board and not accepted by the
directors shall be referred to arbitration.
16. Any proposal agreed to by a sectional board or a central board involving
a reduction of rates of wages shall be communicated to the employees, and if
rejected by them within a month, shall be referred as follows, that is to say—
(1) A proposal agreed to by a sectional board and rejected by the employees
shall be referred to the central board; and
(2) A proposal agreed to by the central board and rejected by the employees
shall be referred to arbitration.

17. Except as otherwise herein provided, the decision of a sectional board or
of the central board shall be final and binding on the parties, and no decision
shall be reopened within 12 months.
PROCEDURE OF CONCILIATION BOARDS.

18. Each side of a conciliation board shall select its own chairman.
19. Secretaries for the sectional boards and the central boards shall be
appointed by the central board. A single secretary may be appointed by
agreement between the two sides of the central board, and the single secretary
so appointed shall act for both sides of all the sectional boards and of the
central board. Failing agreement each side of the central board shall appoint
a separate secretary from among the salaried or wages employees of the
company, and the separate secretaries so appointed shall act for the respective
sides of such boards.
20. Each side of a conciliation board shall vote separately, and the vote of
each side shall be determined by a majority of the side, or, in the event of
equality, by the casting vote of the chairman of the side, and all decisions shall
be arrived at by agreement between the two sides.
21. Casual vacancies in a conciliation board through death, resignation, or
loss of qualification shall be filled by cooptation by the remaining members on
the same side of the board.
MEETINGS OF CONCILIATION BOARDS.

22. Every board shall meet for business, as required, at the request of either
side, but no board shall be required to meet for new business oftener than once
in two months, except that where, in the case of the central board, this would
31326°—Bull. 98—12— -9

122

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

involve an interval of more tlian one month after a sectional board fails to
arrive at a settlement, the central board shall, at the request of either side,
meet to deal with such business. A fortnight's notice shall be given of all meet
ings. No meeting shall be held in August or September, but where this would
involve an interval of more than three months, a meeting shall, at the request
of either side, be held in July.
23. All meetings of a conciliation board shall be convened by the single
secretary or by the separate secretary of either side, as the case may be.
The agenda shall be circulated with the notices of meeting, and no question not
on the agenda shall be brought up except with the consent of both sides.
APPOINTMENT AND POWERS OF ARBITRATOR.

24. Any reference to arbitration shall be to a single arbitrator, to be appointed
by agreement between the two sides of the central board, or, in default of agree
ment, to be appointed only on the application of either side of the central board
by the speaker of the House of Commons and the lord president of the court
of session, or, in the unavoidable absence or inability of one of them to act,
then by the remaining one.
25. Proceedings before the arbitrator shall be regulated by him, including
the period during which the award shall be binding.
26. The decision of the arbitrator shall be binding on all parties.
AS TO COUNSEL AND LAW AGENTS.

27. In order to keep procedure simple and inexpensive, counsel or law agents
shall not be entitled to appear or plead in any matter or question before any
conciliation board, and counsel shall not be entitled to appear or plead in any
arbitration proceedings.
EXPENSES OF CONCILIATION BOARDS AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS.

28. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the expenses of concilia
tion boards and arbitration proceedings shall be borne and paid equally by
the company and the employees.
INCLUSION OF OTHER GRADES OF EMPLOYEES.

29. If the employees belonging to any grade not included in any of the sec
tions should desire hereafter to participate in this scheme, they may make ap
plication to the central board, which, if it thinks desirable, may either admit
them to an existing sectional board, or form a new sectional board for such
grade of employees.
DURATION OF SCHEME.

30. The present scheme shall be in force until 12 months after notice has
been given by one side to the other to terminate it. No such notice shall be
given within six years of the sealing of this scheme.
INTERPRETATION.

31. If any question should arise as to the interpretation of this scheme it
shall be decided by the board of trade, or at the request of either party, by
the lord president of the court of session.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.
CONCILIATION ACT OF 1896.

In Great Britain in recent years the development of the machinery
for the settlement of trade disputes by boards of conciliation and
arbitration and by joint committees has assumed great importance.
While a considerable number of these boards have been in operation
for long periods and many more are due entirely to the initiative
of the employers and employees independent of any official agency,
the conciliation act of 1896 and the railway conciliation and arbitra
tion scheme of 1907 have been especially influential in promoting
the growth of the present movement.
The conciliation act of 1896 was the outcome of an inquiry begun
in 1893 by the Board of Trade as to the legislation needed to meet the
new industrial and social conditions. At that time three earlier acts
were still nominally in force: The arbitration act of 1824, which
authorized the appointment by justices of the peace of arbitrators
in labor disputes and gave them extensive and arbitrary powers;
Lord St. Leonard’s act of 1867, which confirmed the act of 1824 and
added provisions for the formation of councils of conciliation and
arbitration; and the arbitration act of 1872, which enlarged the ma
chinery for appointing arbitrators and arbitration boards, but left
the arbitrary provisions of the earlier legislation in full force.
Practically none of these acts had been put into operation, and at the
time the Board of Trade’s discussion was begun it was obvious that
they were one and all wholly unsuited to existing conditions, and that
the best which could be said for them was that they were harmless
when not enforced.
After three years of discussion in Parliament and outside, the
act for the prevention and settlement of trade disputes, commonly
known as the conciliation act of 1896, was passed.1 Its most im
portant feature was the authorization of the Board of Trade as a
standing agency of mediation, ready to act at the request of either
party, or to offer its services when the public welfare seemed to
demand such action. It will be noticed that the Board of Trade was
given no powers of compulsion whatever, but the mere fact that a
body of its weight and reputation had been told off for such a service
tended to dignify the idea of conciliation, while the ease with which
its services could be secured was a strong inducement to call upon
it in cases of disagreement.
1 For

text of the Conciliation Act, 1896, see Appendix I, pp. 140 and 141.

123

124

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.
PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION.

In the 15 years since the passage of the act only two important
additions have been made to the machinery which the Board of Trade
was empowered to call into play when circumstances demanded. The
first was the provision in 1908 of the permanent court of arbitration.1
In providing for this the president of the Board of Trade expressly
disclaimed any intention of curtailing or replacing any of the func
tions already performed under the conciliation act; the proposed
court was to be an addition, not a substitution, and its creation was
ascribed to the fact that the scale of the operations carried on by
the Board of Trade “ deserves, and indeed requires, the creation of
some more formal and permanent machinery.” Another reason
given was the desire to test public sentiment in regard to arbitration;
it seems to have been felt that the general attitude toward concilia
tion was already pretty well known.
The panels from which the members of the court were to be drawn
were prepared at once, and the system was put in operation in 1909.
There was strong opposition among some of the trade-unionists to
the appointment by the Board of Trade of the panel of workpeople’s
representatives. In 1909 and 1910 alike eight cases were settled
by the court of arbitration, but it is worthy of note that, whereas
in 1909 in five of the cases-handled the appeal to the Board of Trade
was not made until after a stoppage of work had occurred, in 1910
only three of the cases had reached this stage; yet the number of
cases handled by the Board of Trade which involved a stoppage of
work was rather larger in 1910 than in 1909. As far as it is per
missible to draw conclusions from so brief a test, it would seem that
the court of arbitration works more to the satisfaction of the con
testing parties when called upon in the earlier stages of a dispute.
INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.

The second addition to the machinery provided by the Board of
Trade was made during 1911 largely as an outcome of the industrial
contests of the late summer, which threw an enormous amount of
delicate and difficult work upon the Board of Trade. Moreover, the
part which the Government was obliged to take in these troubles
gave additional cogency to the argument that any conciliatory
agency ought to be free from suspicion of being moved by political
considerations.
“ One disadvantage of the existing system,” said the president of
the Board of Trade, in discussing the new plan, “ is undoubtedly that
it brings into action and prominence the parliamentary head of the
xFor constitution of court, rules, etc., see Appendix II, pp. 141-143.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

125

Board of Trade, who is necessarily a politician, though, in my opin
ion, none the worse for that, and a member of the Government, into
disputes and conciliation which ought to be purely industrial.
* * * If the action of the department in these matters could be
still further removed from the sphere of politics or the suspicion of
politics, it would give even greater confidence and there would be
greater willingness by the parties to a dispute to seek the assistance
of the Board of Trade.”1
The new body, known as the industrial council, was to be made up
of representatives of employers and of workmen in equal numbers.
The following panels of representatives were appointed, and agreed
in their individual capacity to serve for the first year:
E m p lo yers ’ rep resen ta tives .

Mr. George Ainsworth, chairman of the Steel Ingot Makers’ Association.
Sir Hugh Bell, Bart., J. P., president of the Iron, Steel and Allied Trades Fed
eration and chairman of the Cleveland Mine Owners’ Association.
Mr. G. H. Claughton, J. P., chairman of the London & North Western Rail
way Co.
Mr. W. A. Clowes, president of the London Master Printers’ Association.
Mr. J. H. C. Crockett, president of the Incorporated Federated Associations of
Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland.
Mr. F. L. Davis, J. P., chairman of the South Wales Coal Conciliation Board.
Mr. T. L. Devitt, chairman of the Shipping Federation (Ltd.).
Sir T. Ratcliffe Ellis, secretary of the Lancashire and Cheshire Coal Owners’
Association and joint secretary of the Board of Conciliation of the Coal
Trade of the Federated Districts, etc.
Mr. F. W. Gibbins, chairman of the Welsh Plate and Sheet Manufacturers’
Association.
Sir Charles Macara, Bart., J. P., president of the Federation of Master Cotton
Spinners’ Associations.
Mr. Alexander Siemens, chairman of the executive board of the Engineering
Employers’ Federation.
Mr. Robert Thompson, J. P., M. P., past president of the Ulster Flax Spinners’
Association.
Mr. J. W. White, president of the National Building Trades Employers’ Fed
eration.
W orkm en-s rep resen ta tives .
Rt. Hon. Thomas Burt, M. P., general secretary of the Northumberland Miners’
Mutual Confident Association.
Mr. T. Ashton, J. P., secretary of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain and
general secretary of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners’ Federation.
Mr. C. W. Bowerman, M. P., secretary of the Parliamentary Committee of the
Trades Union Congress and president of the Printing and Kindred Trades
Federation of the United Kingdom.
Mr. F. Chandler, J. P., general secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Car
penters and Joiners.
Mr. J. R. Clynes, J. P., M. P., organizing secretary of the National Union of
Gas Workers and General Laborers of Great Britain and Ireland.
Mr. PI. Gosling, president of the National Transport Workers’ Federation and
general secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Watermen, Lightermen,
and Watchmen of River Thames.
Mr. Arthur Henderson, M. P., Friendly Society of Ironfounders.
Mr. John Hodge, M. P., general secretary of the British Steel Smelters, Mill,
Iron, and Tinplate Workers’ Amalgamated Association.
Mr. W. Mosses, general secretary of the Federation of Engineering and Ship
building Trades and of the United Pattern Makers’ Association.
1 Board of Trade Labor Gazette, November, 1911, p. 403.

126

BULLETIN OF THE BUKEAU OF LABOR.

Mr. W. Mullin, J. P., president of the United Textile Factory Workers’ Associa
tion and general secretary of the Amalgamated Association of Card and
Blowing Room Operatives.
Mr. E. L. Poulton, general secretary of the National Union of Boot and Shoe
Operatives.
Mr. Alexander Wilkie, J. P., M. P., secretary of the shipyard standing commit
tee under the national agreement, 1909, and general secretary of the Shipconstructive and Shipwrights’ Society.
Mr. J. E. Williams, general secretary of the Amalgamated Society Of Railway
Servants.
Additions may be made to the above list.
The members of the council will in the first instance hold office for one year.
Sir George Askwith, K. C. B., K. C., the present comptroller general of the
labor department of the Board of Trade, has been appointed to be chairman of
the industrial council, with the title of chief industrial commissioner, and
Mr. H. J. Wilson, of the Board of Trade, to be registrar of the council.1

The first meeting of the council was held October 26, 1911, at the
Board of Trade offices. The president of the board, in his address of
welcome, after referring to the need of a conciliatory body free from
political affiliations, continued:
The other reason for the creation of the industrial council is that
we believe that the powers and position of the Board of Trade, its
good offices, could be advantageously strengthened in the direction
of what may be called a national industrial body of weight and re
pute, consisting of representatives of the two great sides of the indus
try of the country; * * * a body that would bring to bear on
these problems a great range of advice, great weight, and a greater
likelihood, therefore, of useful and acceptable action, especially—and
I lay stress on this—before, rather than after, stoppage of work.
Such a body would also enable an appeal to be made to it by one or
other of the combatants without loss of dignity.
I would point out further that of late years, both on the side of
the employers and on the side of the workmen, considerable steps
have been taken toward what I may call federated effort—combina
tions of trade unions on the one hand and of federations of employers’
associations on the other—and that, from the point of view of trade
disputes, trade and industry are far more interdependent than they
used to be. While, therefore, a few years ago the creation of a na
tional conciliation council, representing all the great industries,
might have been thought to be premature, its existence is really now
essential, so that these matters can be considered as a whole. * * *
Fear has been expressed that the council may interfere with the
freedom of action of federations of employers or of the unions of the
men, but I wish to state clearly * * * that there will be no com
pulsion on either side to submit their case to the council or to accept
its advice or its decisions. The council will not interfere with the
freedom of action of the employers or the employed.12
At this first meeting of the council it was decided that regular
meetings should be held in February, June, and November of each
year, and special meetings might be called at any time by the chair
man. Meetings in general should be considered private, only official
statements of their action being issued, and the members should act
1 Board of Trade Labor Gazette, October, 1911, pp. 362, 363.
2 Idem, November, 1911, p. 403.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

127

in a judicial capacity, not as advocates. The following classes of
cases might require to be dealt with:
(1) Cases which may be referred to the council, as an impartial
body, for their opinion upon the facts only of the case, to be con
veyed to the parties privately.
(2) Cases which may be referred to the council in order that the
facts may be impartially ascertained and recommendations made to
each side, the acceptance of such recommendations not to be obliga
tory nor made public.
(3) Cases similar to those last mentioned, but both sides agreeing
beforehand that the recommendations of the council be made public*
(4) Cases which may be referred to the council upon which a
decision may be given, the parties agreeing to accept the decision as
a final settlement.
(5) Cases which may be referred to the council, under special cir
cumstances, by the Board of Trade or the Government.
(6) Other matters, apart from particular disputes, which the Board
of Trade or the Government may decide to refer to the council, with a
view to obtaining a considered and representative opinion upon spe
cific points.
It will be seen that while the courts of arbitration were merely an
other agency through which the Board of Trade must act, the indus
trial council is intended to serve to a large extent as a substitute for
the Board. The latter reserves the right to offer its sendees, in case
the disputants fail to call on the council or the council fails to adjust
a serious difficulty; but it is confidently expected that such cases will
be few and far between.
CONCILIATION BOARDS IN 1910.

In most of the principal industries of the United Kingdom joint
meetings of representatives of employers and employees are now the
generally recognized method of settling disputes or adjusting differ
ences concerning questions which might otherwise lead to a cessation
of work. In the coal mining and iron and steel industries wages, the
most frequent cause of disputes, are in most districts controlled by
conciliation boards or the machinery set up by them. In the engi
neering and shipbuilding industries national agreements providing
for the full discussion of matters in controversy are in existence. In
the cotton industry provision has been made for holding joint con
ferences in cases of dispute. In the building trades national schemes
of conciliation are in existence for all the principal branches of the
industry.
In August, 1910, according to the report of the Board of Trade,1
the number of permanent boards and joint committees in existence
1 Second Report on Rules of Voluntary Conciliation and Arbitration Boards and Joint
Committees, Board of Trade (Labor Department), p. vi. London, 1910.

128

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

in the various trades was 262. In addition there were a number of
agreements, such as that known as the Brooklands agreement in the
cotton-spinning industry, and the terms of settlement in the engi
neering industry, which, although not coming quite within the scope
of the definition of a conciliation board, exercised functions of a con
ciliatory character. It was estimated that nearly 2,000,000 employees
were covered by all these agencies for conciliation. In addition to
the boards and committees above mentioned there were also 14 dis
trict boards which offered mediation of a general character and were
not confined to any particular trade, and two boards whose work was
restricted to questions affecting employees of cooperative societies.
MEMBERSHIP OE CONCILIATION BOARDS.

As regards the constitution of the boards dealing with particular
trades, the membership usually consists of equal numbers of repre
sentatives of the employers’ associations and of the trade-unions
which are party to the agreement establishing the board. In the
iron and steel industry the members are representatives of establish
ments and not of organizations. In the national scheme of concilia
tion for building trades, where three types of boards exist—namely,
local, central, and national—provision is made for a change in the
personnel of the various boards, the employees’ members of the local
boards being chosen locally, while those of the central and national
boards are selected by the general associations of the trade-unions,
the representatives of the employers being on a similar basis. Under
the railway conciliation scheme, the employees’ representatives on
the central boards are selected by the members of the sectional boards
from among their number. In the district boards the employers’
representatives are chosen not by employers’ associations concerned
with questions affecting labor, but by local chambers of commerce.
In the boards dealing with employees of workmen’s cooperative so
cieties, the workpeople’s representatives are chosen by the tradeunion parliamentary committee, while the representatives of the
cooperative societies are selected by the cooperative union.
SCOPE OF WORK OF CONCILIATION BOARDS.

Some of the more important conciliation boards limit their work
to fixing the general level of wages. Other boards have a settlement
of general wage questions as their principal object, but also deal
with other matters which may be in dispute. Another class, cover
ing in some cases a wide area, deals only with disputes at individual
establishments and has no jurisdiction as regards general disputes.
Others, again, deal solely with the demarcation of work between
different trades. The most numerous class of boards is under no such

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

129

limitations as to the scope of its work, but may deal with all ques
tions affecting the relations between employers and employees within
the area of their jurisdiction, whether general or limited to indi
vidual plants, and whether relating to wages or to other matters.
PROVISIONS AGAINST STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS.

In most cases it is provided by the agreement that no stoppage of
work shall be permitted until the dispute has been submitted to the
conciliation board. With many of the boards this means that no
opportunity for a stoppage of work is afforded, as the rules provide
full machinery for the settlement of the dispute. In some cases,
notably in the manufactured iron and steel industry, the rules pro
vide that if a stoppage of work has occurred the board will refuse to
discuss the matter until work has been resumed. In the boot and
shoe industry it is provided that not only may the board refuse to
inquire into the matter in dispute until work has been resumed, but
that such suspension of work shall be taken into account in the con
sideration of the question. These boards have a further rule that
fines may be imposed on either party causing a stoppage of work if
work is not resumed on the morning of the fourth day after notifica
tion of the stoppage by an aggrieved party.
METHODS OF CONCILIATION BOARDS FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT OF
DIFFERENCES.

The majority of the questions which are brought before the con
ciliation boards are adjusted by conciliatory methods without further
reference, but as the conciliation boards generally consist of equal
numbers of representatives of employers and employees, it not in
frequently happens that the two sides of the board are equally
divided on the question in controversy. Accordingly the effectiveness
of a board as an agency for securing a settlement of differences de
pends largely upon the measures adopted for escaping from such a
deadlock. The report of the Board of Trade classifies the 262 boards
and committees in existence in August, 1910, according to their vari
ous methods of procedure as follows:
(1) Boards with complete automatic machinery for the settlement
of disputes. These boards in August, 1910, numbered 153.
(2) Boards with complete machinery for the settlement of disputes,
not automatic, but to be used only by mutual consent of the parties.
These boards numbered 81.
(3) Boards with no provisions for avoiding a deadlock in the set
tlement of disputes.
The procedure of the various boards up to the final failure of the
parties to agree differs considerably. In some cases only one meeting
of the conciliation board is provided for. In others, by adjourn
ments, opportunity is afforded the parties to reconsider the question

180

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

in dispute or consult with their constituents, while in still other cases
a series of boards or committees is provided, with appeal from one to
the other until the body whose decision is final is reached.
The 153 boards having complete automatic machinery for dealing
with disputes in which the parties have been unable to arrive at a set
tlement include a majority of the important boards in the principal
industries. Nearly all the boards in the coal-mining industry are of
this character, as well as those in connection with the railways and
many other industries.
The rules of these 153 boards show a considerable variation in the
methods of procedure adopted. According to the provision for the
selection of a final authority to settle disputes, they are classified by
the Board of Trade as follows:
(1) Reference to the Board of Trade for appointment of final au
thority to settle disputes; 39 boards.
(2) Reference to permanent neutral chairman, president, arbitra
tor, umpire, or referee; 33 boards.
(3) Reference to arbitrator, umpire, or referee appointed for the
particular case; 75 boards.
(4) Reference to 3 arbitrators or referees with decision by the ma
jority; 6 boards.
It will be noted that in the case of the majority of the boards a
single umpire or arbitrator is provided for and that boards of arbi
tration as distinguished from a single arbitrator are preferred in only
a few cases.
The 39 boards which provide for the final reference of disputed
questions to an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade differ in
their methods of securing this appointment and in the character of
the questions thus referred. Some of these boards apply to the Board
of Trade for assistance in the appointment of an arbitrator, umpire,
or chairman when the parties have been unable to agree in their choice
at their annual or other election of officers. More frequently the ap
plication to the Board of Trade for the appointment of an arbitrator
or umpire is not made until a dispute has arisen which the parties are
unable to settle. In the case of one board, a special feature of the
rules is a provision that if either of the parties fails to appoint an
arbitrator or to assist in appointing an umpire the other party is en
titled to apply to the Board of Trade to appoint an arbitrator, whose
decision shall be final and binding on both parties. In addition to
the boards mentioned, there were in August, 1910, 49 agreements be
tween employers and employees, which, while not establishing con
ciliation boards, made provision for the reference of disputes to arbi
trators or umpires appointed by the Board of Trade.
Among the 33 boards which refer disputes to a permanent neu
tral chairman, president, arbitrator, umpire, or referee, the method

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

131

of selection of the umpire differs considerably. In the 6 boards in
the building trades, cases which the boards are unable to settle are
referred to a referee, or chairman, appointed annually. In 6 boards
in the coal-mining industry, such cases are referred to a neutral
chairman, appointed by outside authorities, when the board is unable
to make a selection. In some of the boards the independent chair
man has a casting vote only and has to decide in favor of one or the
other of the proposals submitted to him, being unable to make an
award in the nature of a compromise. In certain of these boards
provision is made for an adjournment of proceedings for a specified
number of days, in order to give an opportunity for the parties to
consult their constituents or to modify their clainis. In some of these
cases the chairman may give the final decision upon the failure of the
parties to agree at a second meeting, or a further adjournment may
be taken.
The 75 boards which refer disputed questions in the final instance
to an arbitrator or umpire, appointed for the particular case, are
an important group. In a number of instances the boards refer their
unsettled cases direct to arbitrator or umpire. In other cases such
questions are first referred to two arbitrators, and to the umpire only
when the arbitrators fail to reach settlement. In the case of the
railway boards, under the agreement of 1907, the appointment of an
arbitrator, failing an agreement by the central board, was left to the
speaker of the House of Commons and the master of the rolls.1 It
should be noted that in some cases the arbitrators referred to in this
class differ from those mentioned under the previous types of boards
in that they are not necessarily independent persons, but may be rep
resentatives of the parties who appointed them.
The conciliation boards which in the final instance refer their un
settled disputes to three arbitrators, or referees, are confined to the
shipbuilding industry and deal only with questions of demarcation
between the various trades in the shipyard. They usually consist of
equal numbers of employees of each trade affected and an equal num
ber of employers. In one case, however, the employers have only
one representative, who acts as chairman.
Another class of boards is that made up of those with complete
machinery for the settlement of disputes, which, however, can only
be put in operation by mutual consent of the parties. Included in
this group are 67 boards and committees under the national scheme
of conciliation in the building trades. The plan provides for refer
ence of unsettled disputes from joint committee to local board, thence
1 Under the amended railway conciliation scheme of 1911 a permanent neutral chair-,
man is provided for, to he selected by the conciliation board from a panel established by
the Board of Trade, or, failing agreement, by the Board of Trade. The chairman renders
a final decision on matters upon which the parties can not agree. See page 112.

132

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

to central board, and, if still unsettled, to a national board. At any
stage of the proceedings the matter in dispute may be referred to
arbitration by mutual consent of the parties.
A further class of boards is that in which no provision has been
made to avoid the deadlock which arises from the equality of voting.
In addition to these boards, the class includes other important concili
atory agencies. Among these are the arrangements given in the cot
ton-spinning industry and in the engineering and shipbuilding trades.
The Brooklands agreement, which has been in operation in the cotton
spinning industry since 1893, provides for the reference of disputes to
the local secretaries of employers’ and operatives’ organizations, next
to a joint committee of the employers’ federation and the operatives’
association, but no provision is made for arriying at a settlement
should the latter committee fail to agree. In the weaving industry
of north and northeast Lancashire an agreement made in December,
1909, sets up machinery similar to that provided for in the Brooklands agreement. An important addition, however, is the provision
that in cases where stoppages of work occur meetings of representa
tives of the parties to the agreement shall be held every four weeks in
Manchester, with a view to effecting a settlement of the dispute. Dur
ing 1911 a similar provision was added to the Brooklands agreement.1
PROVISIONS AGAINST VIOLATION OF AGREEMENTS.

The rules of some of the boards provide for the establishment of
a guaranty fund or the payment of caution money, and under cer
tain circumstances money penalties are exacted. Thus, in the boot
and shoe trade a deed of trust places the sum of £2,000 ($9,733) in
the hands of three trustees as a guaranty for the due performance by
each party of the obligations of the terms of settlement. In the case
of the board for dock laborers and corn porters at Bristol both sides
deposit £300 ($1,460) as caution money, to remain intact until any
of the provisions of the agreement establishing the board, or one of its
awards, shall have been broken, in which case the money deposited by
the offending party, or so much thereof as may be necessary to recoup
the resulting loss or damage, shall be paid over to the other party,
and any money so paid over shall be forthwith replaced by the losing
party.
CASES DEALT WITH BY BOARD OF TRADE UNDER THE CONCILIATION
ACT, 1896 TO 1910.

The recent additions to the machinery for conciliation and arbitra
tion have not involved any alteration in the powers bestowed on the
Board of Trade by the act of 1896. Until the creation of the indus
trial council the Board was the organism through which the act be
came effective, and the degree to which it was influential was indi-

1 See pages 157 and 195.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

133

eated by the extent of the Board’s activities. The range of the direct
activities of the Board is shown by the following table:

NUMBER OF CASES DEALT WITH BY THE BOARD OF TRADE UNDER THE CONCILIA
TION ACT, 1896 TO 1910, BY YEARS.
[From Eighth Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under the Conciliation Act, p. 4.]
Number of cases.
Involv
Years.
Not in
ing stop volving
page of stoppage. Total.
work.
3
18961..........................................................................................................
8
11
1897..............................................................................................................
24
13
37
1898.....................................................................................................................
8
4
12
1899...................................................................................................................
5
6
11
1900.....................................................................................................................
8
13
21
1901.......................................................................................................
21
12
33
11
1902...................................................................................................................
10
21
9
1903..............................................................................................................
8
17
1904.....................................................................................................................
4
8
12
11
1905.....................................................................................................................
3
14
1906.....................................................................................................................
8
12
20
1907.....................................................................................................................
24
15
39
1908.....................................................................................................................
24
36
60
1909...................................................................................................................
24
33
57
1910...................................................................................................................
41
26
67
Total........................................................................................................
201
231
432
1 Five months only.

The most immediately striking feature of this table is the marked
increase in the number of cases handled during the last few years.1
More than one-half (51.6 per cent) of all the cases dealt with have
been brought before the Board in the last four years; more than twofifths (42.6 per cent) belong to the last three; and the number in
1910 was greater than in any previous year. It is worth noticing
that the marked increase began in 1907, a year of industrial depres
sion, in which there was very general unrest among the workers and
in which a much larger number of labor disputes involving stoppages
of work occurred than in any other year between 1901 and 1911.
Apparently the increasing difficulty of the situation between em
ployers and employed led to an increased appreciation of the services
of an outside body, affiliated with neither party, which had proved
itself both impartial and efficacious. That the Board of Trade has
established such a reputation is shown by the increasing frequency
with which both parties to a dispute ask for its intervention.
In the earlier years applications for the intervention of the Board
of Trade came mainly from one side only (generally the workpeople),
but in recent years the majority of applications have been made
jointly by the parties or by organizations representing them. During
1910 the number of joint applications was 44, or two-thirds of the
total number of cases dealt with, while in 13 cases applications were
received from the workpeople only, and in two cases from the em
ployers only. * * * Of the total of 432 cases dealt with under
the conciliation act during the period 1896-1910, there have been
joint applications in 278 cases. * * * In 95 cases the application
1 These figures relate to disputes in which the Board of Trade has intervened directly,
and do not include any of those settled by the conciliation boards organized and registered
unde* the terms of the act of 1896.

134

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

was made by the workpeople only and in 26 cases by the employers
only. In the remaining 33 cases the Board of Trade took action on
their own initiative.1
Quite as important as the increase in the number of cases brought
before the Board is the change in the time at which they are brought.
It will be observed that at first there was a strong tendency not to
call upon the Board until a strike or lockout had actually occurred,
but that, beginning with 1902, the tendency has set in the other direc
tion, and that now the Board is called upon more often to prevent
an open break than to patch up a truce after the break has occurred.
In other words, it is becoming more and more a preventive agency,
and since prevention is the chief aim of conciliatory proceedings, it
is fulfilling with increasing effectiveness the function for which the
act was passed.
The cases dealt with by the Board of Trade, shown in the above
table, were distributed among the various trades as follows: Build
ing trades, 133; metal, engineering, and shipbuilding trades, 77;
mining and quarrying industries, 54; boot and shoe trades, 48; textile
trades, 28; transport trades, 27; printing and allied trades, 18; all
other trades, 47. In the 26 cases dealt with in 1910 which involved
stoppages of work these stoppages affected in the aggregate about
190,000 workpeople.
Apart from the direct activities of the Board of Trade, another
effect, less easily measured, of the act of 1896 has been its influence
in encouraging the formation of voluntary conciliation boards and
increasing the tendency to call on such bodies in cases of industrial
disagreement. Just how far the act has been influential in this direc
tion can not, of course, be determined, but the tendency is strongly
marked. The following table shows the increase during 10 years in
the use of conciliation or arbitration in disputes which have reached
an acute stage:
NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES, INVOLVING STOPPAGE OF WORK, SETTLED
BY CONCILIATION OR ARBITRATION, 1901 TO 1910.
[From Report on Strikes and Lockouts and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards in
1910, p. 27. These figures include the cases settled by the Board of Trade.]
Number
of workpeople
of strikes Number
involved.
and
lockouts
Years.
settled by
concilia
Indi Total.
tion or Directly. rectly.
arbitra
tion.
1901....................................................................................................
37 14,924 2,793 17,717
1902....................................................................................................
27 3,018 5,264
8,282
28 4,492 3,404
1900....................................................................................................
7,896
1904....................................................................................................
28
21,118
2,270
23,388
1905....................................................................................................
25 6,978 1,714
8,692
46 10,777 3,589
14.366
1906....................................................................................................
45 13,296 4,257
17,553
1907....................................................................................................
1908....................................................................................................
56 158,276 42,003 200,279
63 79,273 13,599 92,872
1909...................................................................................................
1910....................................................................................................
59 172,818 31,566 204,384
1 Eighth Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under the Conciliation Act, pp.
6 and 7.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

135

It will be seen that while the number of disputes annually settled
b y these means has increased but slowly, the number of people
affected has increased enormously. In 1910 the'number of strikes
and lockouts thus settled was but little over half as large again as
in 1901, but the number of workpeople involved was more than
11 times as great as in the earlier year. This can only mean that
more important disputes are now being handled by these methods,
which in turn indicates a much greater confidence in their fairness
and efficacy than was shown in the years when only comparatively
unimportant disagreements were thus settled. •
It may be objected that the increased use of conciliation and arbi
tration might imply only an increase in the number and seriousness
of labor troubles, since obviously the more general such disagreements
are the greater the likelihood that every means of settlement will be
tried. To some extent this may be valid. Industrial disputes have
on the whole been increasing in seriousness for some years past, but
this increase has not kept pace with the increase in the use of con
ciliation and arbitration. The report already quoted gives the fol
lowing figures on this point:
NUMBER OF STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS, AND NUMBER OF WORKPEOPLE INVOLVED,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, 1901 to 1910.
[From Report on Strikes and Lockouts and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards in
1910, p. 8.]
Years.
1901...................................................................................................
1902......................................................... .........................................
1903....................................................................................................
1904...................................................................................................
1905...................................................................................................
1906...................................................................................................
1907...................................................................................................
1908...................................................................................................
1909...................................................................................................
1910...................................................................................................

of workpeople In
Number Number
in disputes begin
of dis volved
ning
in
each
year.
putes beginning
m each
Indi Total!
year. Directly. rectly.
642
442
387
355
358
486
601
399
436
531

111,437 68,109
116,824 139,843
93,515 23,386
56,380 30,828
67,653 25,850
157,872 59,901
100,728 43,770
223,969 71,538
170,258 130,561
385,085 130,080

179,546
256,667
116,901
87,208
93,503
217,773
147,498
295,507
300,819
515,165

It will be seen that while the number of strikes and lockouts annu
ally settled by arbitration or conciliation increased from 37 to 59 dur
ing the decade covered, the number of strikes and lockouts occurring
shows an actual decrease of over a hundred; and that while the dis
putes settled by these means in 1901 involved only about one-tenth (9.8
per cent) as many people as were concerned in the strikes and lock
outs beginning in that year, in 1910 this proportion has increased to
nearly two-fifths (39.6 per cent). It is evident that the use of these
methods is growing more rapidly than are the troubles to which they
are applied.

136

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

An even more important case occurred in the cotton industry,
which was supposed to be provided, by the Brooklands agreement,
with effective machinery for conciliatory methods of settling disa
greements. Nevertheless, this dispute, which is known as the George
Howe case, and which centered about the discharge of one man for ac
tion in which he was sustained by the operatives as a body, resulted in
a lockout involving in all about 102,000 workpeople, and in an ap
parent deadlock between the parties. Both sides had proposed call
ing in the Board of Trade, but each had coupled with the proposition
terms to which the other would not consent. Under these circum
stances the Board proffered its services, and prolonged negotiations
were carried on between its representative and the disputants.
The trouble was finally arranged and the Brooklands agreement so
amended that, it is hoped, no future disputes can reach such a pitch.1
The efficacy of the Board of Trade in cases where the two parties
seem hopelessly at odds is now quite widely recognized.
“ The rules of a number of the conciliation boards,” says a recent
report,12 “ and other agreements arranged by employers and work
people in the various trades, frequently contain a clause providing
that, in the event of failure to effect a settlement of a dispute locally,
application shall be made to the Board of Trade for the appointment
of an umpire, arbitrator, or conciliator. Such clauses, so far as
known to the department, now exist in 96 agreements.”
Obviously the insertion of such clauses in voluntary agreements
is strong testimony to the effect the conciliation act has had in the
past, and to the respect felt by both employer and employed for the
work done by the Board of Trade under its provisions.
MEDIATION WORK OF BOARD OF TRADE.

The foregoing table does not indicate one of the most important
results of the conciliation act—the use made of the Board of Trade,
under the powers conferred by the act, as a mediator when the ma
chinery provided within an industry for the settlement of its own
disputes breaks down. Some of the most important interventions of
the Board in 1910 were of this character. For instance, a disagree
ment between the Shipbuilding Employers’ Federation and the United
Society of Boilermakers and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders led to a
stoppage of work affecting directly 15,300 men, and indirectly 20,000
others. Both employers and employees were strongly organized, and
with a view to preventing precisely the kind of deadlock which now
arose, both sides had in 1909 signed an agreement making “ample
provision for local negotiations, preliminary conferences, grand con
ferences, demarcation disputes, etc., and for the appointment or
1
2

See pages 157 and 195.
Eighth Report by the Board of Trade Proceedings under the Conciliation Act, p. 7.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN*

137

selection of an independent referee to whom questions of dispute may
be submitted in the event any joint committee fails to agree.” 1 As in
spite of this machinery it seemed impossible to reach an agreement,
the Board of Trade proffered its services as mediator, and separate
conferences were held with representatives of the organizations on
both sides. Negotiations between the two parties were resumed,
and the difficulty was finally settled, the original agreement being
amended to prevent the recurrence of such a situation.
WORK OF PERMANENT CONCILIATION BOARDS AND JOINT COM
MITTEES.

The growing confidence in the principles of conciliation shows
itself also in the number of permanent conciliation boards and joint
committees established in the various trades throughout the United
Kingdom. In most of the principal trades of the United Kingdom
joint meetings of representatives of employers and workpeople are
now the generally recognized method of settling disputes or adjusting
differences in regard to questions which might otherwise lead to a
cessation of work.12
The following table shows the distribution by industries of the
permanent boards and joint committees:
NUMBER OF PERMANENT BOARDS AND JOINT COMMITTEES FOR CONCILIATION
AND ARBITRATION, BY INDUSTRIES.
[Compiled from Second Report on Rules of Voluntary Conciliation and Arbitration Boards and Joint
Committees, pp. 302 to 304.]
Industries.

Building trades........................
Coalmining.............................
Other mining and quarrying..
Iron and steel..........................
Engineering and shipbuilding
Other metal trades..................
Textiles....................................
Boots, shoes, and clogs...........
Tailoring..................................
Railways..................................
Dock and waterside labor,__
Miscellaneous trades...............
Total..............................
District boards........................
General boards........................
Grand total...................

Number#
111
19
6
10
10

24
4
47

262
14
2

278

These figures show the situation in August. 1910; it is known that
the number of such bodies has increased since then, but the figures
for 1911 are not yet at hand.
See page 187.
Second Report on Rules of Voluntary Conciliation and Arbitration Boards and Joint
Committees, pp. vi, vii.
a Not including Brooklands agreement.
1
2

31326°—Bull. 98—12-----10

138

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

The following tables show by years the number of cases considered
and the number settled by permanent conciliation and arbitration
boards for a period of 10 years:1
NUMBER OF CASES CONSIDERED BY PERMANENT CONCILIATION AND ARBITRA
TION BOARDS, 1901 to 1910.
[The cases include both disputes causing stoppage of work and those in which no stoppage occurred.!
Industries.

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910

Boards dealing with particular trades:
Building.............................................. 20 19 15 29 24 45 58 72 59 71
Mining and quarrying....................... 1,036 1,104 1,278 1,089 1,451 1,296 1,231 1,304 1,318 1,387
Iron and steel...................................... 44 41 55 37 30 30 22 20 23 25
Engineering and shipbuilding.......... 138 135 104 91 102 75 74 103 25 26
Other metal trades............................. 10 39 28 27 1
5 52 . 43 60 153
Textile........... .................................... 3 10 20
8
17 25 1 11
1
2
Boot and shoe..................................... 146 82 80 84 67 62 72 104 141 132
Railways.............................................
138 265 97
Other trades....................................... 5 26 48 48 29 16 33 39 99 76
District and general boards...................... 4 6
5 5 5 7 2
5
8
3
Total................................................ 1,406 1,462 1,633 1,418 1,726 1,561 1,545 1,842 1,997 1,971
NUMBER OF CASES SETTLED BY PERMANENT CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION
BOARDS, 1901 to 1910.
[The cases include both disputes causing stoppage of work and those in which no stoppage occurred.]
Industries.

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910

Boards dealing with particular trades:
Building..... ........................................ 13 11 10 13 22 33 47 44 33 46
Mining and quarrying....................... 424 450 527 434 657 531 454 529 564 657
Iron
and steel..................................... 37 34 47 30 25 21 16 17 16 23
Engineering and shipbuilding............ 114 103 76 69 53 46 42 53 14
18
5 39 39 311 1131
Other metal trades............................. 10 19 27 24 1
7 4 14 12
6
Textile.......;........................................ 3 8
Boot and shoe..................................... 101 57 59 36 38 30 43 76 98 88
2
171 72
Railways.............................................
Other trades....................................... 4 20 42 35 25 14 261 35 92 66
4 5 4 5
6
5
3
2
District and general boards...................... 2
Total................................................ 708 704 799 650 839 697 668 807 1,025 1,087

These tables show a marked increase both in the number of cases
handled and in the number settled by the boards. The most striking
feature is the inclusion of railway disputes from 1908 onward, due
to the workings of the agreement of 1907. The very small number
of these disputes settled in 1908, the year in which the railway con
ciliation boards were first set up, is due to the delays involved in
getting the new machinery into working order. The next year
shows a large number of settlements. The falling off in 1910 shows
the effect of the 1909 settlements, many of which were to last for
three years or longer, so that on the roads where these adjustments
were in force, disputes were barred. By far the largest number of
cases either handled or settled were in the mining and quarrying
industries. This is due to the joint committees for the coal trade of
Northumberland and Durham, which deal solely with disputes at
1 Report on Strikes and Lockouts and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards in 1010,
p. 81.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

139

individual collieries, and which in 1910 settled 561 out of the 65T
disposed of by all the boards and committees in this group.
The iron and steel industry shows an absolute decrease in the
number of eases handled, while at the same time the proportion of
cases settled has risen from 84 per cent in 1901 to 92 per cent in 1910.
The falling off in numbers is due to the careful preliminary sifting
of complaints at the works, and also to the fact that many precedents
of general application have now been established.
The engineering and shipbuilding trades also show a very marked
decrease in the number of cases handled. The area covered by
conciliation boards or committees has increased during the decade,
so that this decrease can only mean a falling off in the number of
disputes in the industry.
The building trades show a striking increase in the number of
cases handled, due apparently to the extensive development in the
machinery for conciliation which has taken place in these trades
within the last few years.
The work of these boards is very largely preventive. Of the
1,087 disputes settled by them in 1910, only 16 involved a stoppage of
work.1 During the decade 1901 to 1910, 7,984 disputes were settled
by permanent conciliation and arbitration boards, and of these only
125 (1.6 per cent) had reached a stage involving a stoppage of work.
In general the rules of the boards require that neither a strike nor
lockout shall take place until the difficulty has been discussed. The
dispute dealt with range from trivial matters affecting only a few
persons to cases involving thousands of workers. One of the settle
ments in 1910 related to an advance of wages in the coal trade of
Monmouth and South Wales which affected 190,000 workpeople.
INDIRECT EFFECT OF CONCILIATION ACT.

In addition to the two effects already discussed, L e., the direct
activities of the Board of Trade and the encouragement given to the
formation and use of conciliatory bodies, there is some ground for
attributing to the act of 1896 an indirect but important effect in
adding dignity and weight to conciliation proceedings by whatsoever
body undertaken. The registration of the permanent boards and
the intervention of the Board of Trade in difficult cases tend to give
an official or even a quasi judicial character to conciliation or arbi
tration proceedings, making it easier for either side to accept a deci
sion which goes against it.
" The settlement of difficulties between masters and men,” says one
student of the subject, “ now partakes to a large extent of the nature
of court proceedings, and masters and men, instead of resorting, as
1 Report on Strikes and Lockouts and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards in 1910,
pp. 80 and 81.

140

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

in the old days, to force on one side and violence and intimidation
on the other, are satisfied now to submit their differences to a recog
nized authority who renders his decision not because he has preju
dices or is under the influence of complainant or defendant, but on
the merits of the question as it has been presented to him, precisely
as a judge does; and in England the litigant has confidence that the
judge will be governed by no improper motives in awarding his
verdict.”
This tendency has probably been increased by the addition of the
permanent court of arbitration to the machinery which the Board of
Trade may call into play when necessary.
It is evident that the act of 1896 may fairly be credited with a con
siderable influence both in reducing the number of labor troubles
which reach an acute stage and in aiding the development of a re
spect for conciliation and arbitration as opposed to violence in settle
ment of industrial disputes. Up to the outbreak of the railway
strike of 1911, this movement appeared to be gaining ground with
employers, employees, and the general public alike. How it will be
affected by the strike can not, of course, yet be said. It is to be noted,
however, that the strike was directed not against the principles un
derlying this movement but against a particular method of applying
them which the men believed involved delays and hardships which
formed no necessary part of their application; and, further, that the
settlement proposed by the royal commission involves no recession
from the principles of the act, but merely such changes in the ma
chinery for adjusting disputes as will render it possible to apply
these principles more promptly and effectively.
APPENDIX I.— CONCILIATION ACT, 1896.

AN ACT TO MAKE BETTER PROVISION FOR THE PREVENTION AND
SETTLEMENT OF TRADE DISPUTES. [7TH AUGUST, 1896.]
1.— (1) Any board established either before or after the passing of this act,
which is constituted for the purpose of settling disputes between employers and
workmen by conciliation or arbitration, or any association or body authorized
by an agreement in writing made between employers and workmen to deal with
such disputes (in this act referred to as a conciliation board), may apply to the
Board of Trade for registration under this act.
(2) The application must be accompanied by copies of the constitution, by
laws, and regulations of the conciliation board, with such other information as
the Board of Trade may reasonably require.
(3) The Board of Trade shall keep a register of conciliation boards, and enter
therein with respect to each registered board its name and principal office, and
such other particulars as the Board of Trade may think expedient, and any
registered conciliation board shall be entitled to have its name removed from
the register on sending to the Board of Trade a written application to that
effect.
(4) Every registered conciliation board shall furnish such returns, reports of
its proceedings, and other documents as the Board of Trade may reasonably
require.
(5) The Board of Trade may, on being satisfied that a registered conciliation
board has ceased to exist or to act, remove its name from the register.

CONCILIATION ANDARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

141

(6) Subject to any agreement to the contrary, proceedings for conciliation
before a registered conciliation board shall be conducted in accordance with the
regulations of the board in that behalf.
2 . — (1) Where a difference exists or is apprehended between an employer,
or any class of employers, and workmen, or between different classes of work
men, the Board of Trade may, if they think fit, exercise all or any of the follow
ing powers, namely:
( a ) Inquire into the causes and circumstances of the difference;
(1) ) Take such steps as to the board may seem expedient for the purpose of
enabling the parties to the difference to meet together, by themselves or their
representatives, under the presidency of a chairman mutually agreed upon or
nominated by the Board of Trade or by some other person or body, with a view
to the amicable settlement of the difference;
(c) On the application of employers or workmen interested, and after taking
into consideration the existence and adequacy of means available for concilia
tion in the district or trade* and the circumstances of the case, appoint a person
or persons to act as conciliator or as a board of conciliation;
( d ) On the application of both parties to the difference, appoint an arbitrator.
(2) If any person is so appointed to act as conciliator, he shall inquire into
the causes and circumstances of the difference by communication with the
parties, and otherwise shall endeavor to bring about a settlement of the differ
ence, and shall report his proceedings to the Board of Trade.
(3) If a settlement of the difference is effected either by conciliation or by
arbitration, a memorandum of the terms thereof shall be drawn up and signed
by the parties or their representatives, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to
and kept by the Board of Trade.
3. The arbitration act, 1889, shall not apply to the settlement by arbitration
of any difference or dispute to which this act applies, but any such arbitration
proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with such of the provisions of the
said act, or such of the regulations of any conciliation board, or under such
other rules or regulations as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties to the
difference or dispute.
4. If it appears to the Board of Trade that in any district or trade adequate
means do not exist for having disputes submitted to a conciliation board for the
district or trade, they may appoint any person or persons to inquire into the con
ditions of the district or trade, and to confer with the employers and employed,
and, if the Board of Trade think fit, with any local authority or body, as to the
expediency of establishing a conciliation board for the district or trade.
5. The Board of Trade shall from time to time present to Parliament a report
of their proceedings under this act.
6. The expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in the execution of this act
shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
7. The Masters and Workmen Arbitration Act, 1824, and the Councils of Con
ciliation Act, 1867, and the Arbitration (Masters and Workmen) Act, 1872, are
hereby repealed.
8. This act may be cited as the Conciliation Act, 1896.
APPENDIX II.— COURT OF ARBITRATION.

The following is the text of a memorandum communicated by the
president of the Board of Trade to chambers of commerce and em
ployers’ and workmen’s associations in September, 1908, with refer
ence to the formation of a court of arbitration as an auxiliary to the
conciliation act. It is self-explanatory:
MEMORANDUM.

1. Under the conciliation act of 1896 the Board of Trade has power to appoint
a conciliator in trade disputes, and an arbitrator at the request of both parties.
These slender means of intervention have been employed in cases where oppor
tunity has offered, and the work of the department in this sphere has consid
erably increased of recent years. In 1905 the Board of Trade intervened in 14
disputes and settled them all; in 1906 they intervened in 20 cases and settled
16; in 1907 they intervened in 39 cases and settled 32; while during the first
eight months of the present year no fewer than 47 cases of intervention have

142

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

occurred, of which 35 have been already settled, while some of the remainder
are still being dealt with.
2. It is not proposed to curtail or replace any of the existing functions or
practices under the conciliation act, nor in any respect to depart from its
voluntary and permissive character, The good offices of the department will
still be available to all in industrial circles for the settlement of disputes when
ever opportunity offers. Single arbitrators and conciliators will still fee ap
pointed whenever desired. Special interventions will still be undertaken in
special cases, and no element of compulsion will eater into any of these pro
ceedings. But the time has now arrived when the scale of these operations
deserves, and indeed requires, the ereation of some more formal and permanent
machinery; and, with a view to consolidating; expanding, and popularizing
the working of the conciliation act, I propose to set up a standing court of
arbitration.
3. The court, which will sit whenever required, will be composed of three
(or five) members, according to the wishes of the parties, with fees and ex
penses to members of the court and to Hie chairmen during sittings. The court
will be nominated by the Board of Trade from three panels. The first panel—
of chairmen—will comprise persons of eminence and Impartiality. The second
will he formed of persons who, while preserving an impartial mind in regard
to the particular dispute, are nevertheless drawn from the " employer class.”
The third panel will be formed of persons similarly drawn fro m the class o f
workmen and trade-unionists. It is hoped that this composition will remove
from the court the reproach which workmen have sometimes brought against
individual conciliators and arbitrators, that, however fair they mean to be,
they do not intimately understand the position of the manual laborer. It is
believed that by the appointment of two arbitrators selected from the em
ployers’ panel and two from the workmen’s panel in difficult cases, thus consti
tuting a court of five instead of three persons, the decisions of the court would
be rendered more authoritative, especially to the workmen, who, according
to the information of the Board of Trade, are more ready to submit to the judg
ment of two of their representatives than of one. As the personnel of the court
would be constantly varied, there would be no danger of the court itself
becoming unpopular with either class in consequence of any particular decision;
there would be no difficulty in choosing members quite unconnected with the
ease in dispute, and no inconvenient labor would be imposed upon anyone
who consented to serve on the panels. Lastly, in order that the peculiar condi
tions of any trade may be fully explained to the court, technical assessors
may be appointed by the Board of Trade, at the request of the court of the
parties, to assist in the deliberations, but without any right to vote.
4. Hie state of public opinion upon the general question of arbitration in
trade disputes may be very conveniently tested by such a voluntary arrange**
m m t. Careful inquiry through various channels open to the Board of Trade
justifies the expectation that the plan would not he unwelcome in industrial
circles. The court will only be called into being if, and in proportion as,
it is actually wanted. No fresh legislation is necessary.
5. Steps will now be taken to form the respective panels.
September 1, 1908.

When both parties to an industrial dispute desire to have their
differences settled by arbitration it is open to them jointly to apply
to the Board of Trade under the conciliation act either (1) for the
appointment of a single arbitrator, or (2) for the appointment of a
court of arbitration in accordance with the scheme devised in 1908,
by the president of the Board of Trade.
The following regulations have been drawn up by the Board of
Trade in connection with the appointment of courts of arbitration:
REGULATIONS.

1. The application should state <«) the subject matter of the dispute; (5)
whether the parties wish the court to consist of <1) a chairman and two arbi
trators, or (2) a chairman and four arbitrators; (c) whether the parties desire

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

143

the Board of Trade (i) to appoint a chairman and arbitrators, all of whose
names have been jointly selected by the parties from the respective panels,
or (ii) to appoint a chairman whose name has been jointly selected by the par
ties from the chairmen’s panel, and to select and appoint the arbitrators from
the respective panels, or (iii) to select and appoint the chairman from the
chairmen’s panel, and to appoint arbitrators jointly selected by the parties from
the respective panels, or (iv) to select and appoint all the members of the
court from the respective panels; (d ) whether the parties wish the court to
appoint, or apply to the Board of Trade to appoint, a technical assessor or
assessors.
2. A court of arbitration shall, if either party or both parties shall have so
requested, or may on their own initiative, if they consider that the assistance
of a technical assessor or assessors is expedient, appoint or apply to the
Board of Trade to appoint a technical assessor or assessors accordingly.
3. Technical assessors shall not be members of the court. They will be ap
pointed solely for the purpose of giving the court information on technical
matters when required by them. They will only be entitled to be present at
such stages of the proceedings as the court may direct. Every assessor before
taking up his duties shall pledge himself in writing to keep secret all matters
'With which he shall in the course of the performance of such duties become
acquainted.
4. All procedure in connection with the hearing of a case shall be settled by
the chairman after consultation with other members of the court, including the
mode of appearance thereat.
For the convenience of the court, each application should be accompanied by
a statement showing (a) whom the parties desire to represent them at the
hearing and (5) the approximate number of witnesses each side desires to call.
5. The award of a majority of the members of the court shall be the award
of the court. When no majority can be obtained in favor of an award, owing
to the arbitrators being equally divided, then the matter shall be decided by
the chairman, acting with the full powers of an umpire.
6. After an award is made it shall be signed by the chairman on behalf of
the court, and he shall then cause a copy to be sent to the representatives of
both parties to the dispute. The original award, together with any shorthand
notes and all relevant papers, shall be forwarded to the Board of Trade.
7. Shorthand notes (and transcripts of such notes) of any part of the pro
ceedings shall only be paid for by the Board of Trade if the chairman of the
court certifies that the notes were necessary for the purpose of the court. The
Board of Trade will also pay any expenses connected with the drawing of the
award, and for the hire of a room for the hearing of the case when necessary.
They will also pay the expenses of the members of the court.
APPENDIX III.— RULES OE LONDON LABOR CONCILIATION AND ARBITRA
TION BOARD..I

I. That a permanent body be constructed, to be called The London Concilia
tion Board, which shall be affiliated to the London Chamber of Commerce, and
that its composition shall be as follows, viz:
(a) Twelve members representing capital or employers, to be elected by the
council of the chamber.
(1)) Twelve members representing labor, to be elected by the employed.
II. The duties of The London Conciliation Board shall be as follows:
(a) To promote amicable methods of settling labor disputes and the preven
tion of strikes and lockouts generally, and also especially in the following
methods :
1. They shall, in the first instance, invite both parties to the dispute to a
friendly conference with each other, offering the rooms of the chamber of com
merce as a convenient place of meeting. Members of the board can be present
at this conference, or otherwise, at the pleasure of the disputants.
2. In the event of the disputants not being able to arrive at a settlement
between themselves, they shall be invited to lay their respective cases before
the board, with a view to receiving their advice, mediation, or assistance. Or,
should the disputants prefer it, the board would assist them in selecting arbi
trators, to whom the questions at issue might be submitted for decision.
3. The utmost efforts of the board shall in the meantime and in all cases be
exerted to prevent, if possible, the occurrence or continuance of a strike or
lockout until after all attempts at conciliation shall have been exhausted.

144

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

The London Conciliation Board shall not constitute itself a body of arbitra
tors except at the express desire of both parties to a dispute, to be signified in
writing, but shall in inference, should other methods of conciliation fail, offer
to assist the disputants in the selection of arbitrators chosen either from its
own body or otherwise. Any dispute coming before the board shall, in the first
instance, be referred to a conciliation committee of the particular trade to
which the disputants belong, should such a committee have been formed and
affiliated to the chamber.
(&) To collect information as to the wages paid and other conditions of labor
prevailing in other places where trades or industries similar to those of Lon
don are carried on, and especially as regards localities either in the United
Kingdom or abroad where there is competition with the trade of London. Such
information shall be especially placed at the disposal of any disputants who
may seek the assistance of The London Conciliation Board.
III. The London Chamber of Commerce places its rooms at the disposition .of
The London Conciliation Board and of the trade conciliation committees for
holding their meetings. Any alterations in the rules and regulations of these
bodies which may be from time to time proposed shall be submitted for approval
to the council of the chamber.
IY. The above regulations shall be subject to by-laws, to be specially framed
for the purpose and which shall be open to amendments as required from time
to time, on agreement between the council of the chamber of commerce and
The London Conciliation Board.
EXTRACTS FROM THE BY-LAWS.

5. The board shall elect its own chairman and vice chairman, who shall vote
with the board but shall not have a second or casting vote.
7. The chairman shall be selected from the employers of labor on the board
and the vice chairman from amongst the employed.
APPENDIX IV.—DURHAM COAL OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION AND DURHAM
COUNTY MINING FEDERATION CONCILIATION BOARD.

The Durham Coal Owners’ Association and the Durham County Mining Fed
eration hereby agree to form a board of conciliation for the Durham coal trade,
hereinafter called “ the board.”
The following shall be the objects, constitution, and rules of procedure:
OBJECTS.

By conciliatory means to prevent disputes and to put an end to any that may
arise, and with this view to consider and decide upon all claims that either
party may from time to time make for a change in county rates of wages or
countjr practices, and upon any other questions not falling within the jurisdic
tion of the joint committee that it may be agreed between the parties to
refer to the board.
CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF PROCEDURE.

1. The board shall be constituted of the following number of representatives
appointed by the following bodies, viz, by the—
Miners’ association_____________________________________________________ 0
Cokemen’s association__________________________________________________ 3
Mechanics’ association_____________________________
3
Enginemen’s association__________________________ 1____________________ 3
Coal owners’ association_________________________________________________ IS
Total------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3G
2. The coal owners’ representatives on the one hand and the representatives
unitedly of the four other associations on the other hand, are for brevity herein
referred to as “ the parties.”
3. The board shall continue till either of the parties gives six months’ notice
of withdrawal from it, but neither of the parties to withdraw before the end
of 1902.

CONCILIATION- AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

145

4. An umpire shall be forthwith agreed upon by the board, or failing agree
ment, be appointed by the Board of Trade after conferring unitedly with each
of the parties represented by the board. Each umpire shall hold office until
his successor is appointed. The board shall, at its meeting in November, 1900,
and in November of each succeeding year, and within one month of the death
or resignation of any umpire, proceed to appoint a successor in the manner
herein provided.
5. No decision shall be altered until it has been in operation for 12 weeks.
6. All questions submitted to the board shall be stated in writing, and may
be supported by such verbal, documentary, or other evidence as either party
may desire to adduce and as the board may deem relevant.
7. All questions shall in the first instance be submitted to and considered
by the board without the presence of the umpire, it being the desire and inten
tion of the parties to settle by friendly conference, if possible, any difficulties
or differences which may arise. If the board can not agree, then the meeting
shall be adjourned, and the umpire shall be summoned to the adjourned meet
ing, when the matter shall be again discussed, and in default of an agreement
by the board, the umpire shall give his casting vote on such matter. The
decision of the board or its umpire shall be final and binding on the parties.
8. The umpire may at his discretion require either party to afford him the
means of obtaining, for the information of the board only, any facts that in his
judgment are essential to the decision of any question at issue.
9. The parties shall each, respectively, elect a secretary to represent them in
the transaction of the business of the board, and each party shall give written
notice thereof to the secretary of the other party, and both such secretaries
shall remain in office until they shall resign or be withdrawn by the party
electing them. The secretaries shall attend all meetings of the board and be
entitled to take part in the discussion, but they shall have no power to move
or second any resolution or to vote on any question before the board, unless
either secretary be also one of the representatives, in which case he shall in
that capacity have all the rights and privileges of a representative.
10. The secretaries shall conjointly convene all meetings of, the board, of
which not less than seven days’ notice shall be given, such notice specifying
the business to be considered, and shall take proper minutes of the board and
the proceedings thereof, which shall be transcribed in duplicate books, and each
such book shall be signed by the umpire, chairman, or vice chairman, or other
person, as the case may be, who shall have presided at the meeting to which
such minutes relate. One of such minute books shall be kept by each of the
secretaries. The secretaries shall also conduct the correspondence for the
respective parties and conjointly for the board.
11. The secretaries shall on the written application of either of the parties,
made by the chairman and secretary of either party, call a special meeting of
the board within 21 days, at such time as may be agreed upon by the secret
taries. The application for the meeting shall state clearly the object of the
meeting.
12. Each party shall pay the expenses of its own representatives and secre
tary, but the costs and expenses of the umpire, stationery, books, printing, hire
of rooms for meetings, etc., shall be borne by the respective parties in equal
shares.
13. At the first meeting of the board in each year the board shall appoint
a chairman and vice chairman, one of whom shall be a representative of the
coal owners’ associatipn and the other of the miners’, cokemen’s, mechanics’, or
enginemen’s association.
14. The chairman, or in his absence the vice chairman, shall preside at all
meetings at which the umpire is not present, as herein provided. In the ab
sence of both chairman and vice chairman a member of the board shall be
elected by the majority to preside at that meeting. The chairman or vice
chairman, or other person presiding, shall vote as a representative, but shall
not have any casting vote. When the umpire is present he shall preside and
have a casting vote only.
15. Ordinary meetings of the board shall be held as early as possible in the
months of February, May, August, and November in each year. The meetings
of the board shall be held at Newcastle, or such other place as the board shall
from time to time determine.
16. All votes shall be taken at meetings of the board by show of hands.
When at any meeting of the board the representatives of the respective parties

146

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

are unequal in number, all shall have the right of fully entering Into the dis
cussion of any matters brought before them, but only an equal number of each
shall vote, the withdrawal of the representatives of whichever party may be
in excess to be by lot unless otherwise arranged.
17th October, 1899.
DURHAM COAL OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION AND DURHAM MINERS’ ASSO
CIATION.
J oint Committee R ules , as A mended J une 9, 1911?
miners .

1. The joint committee shall take into consideration and determine local dis
putes arising at any particular colliery belonging to a member of the Durham
Coal Owners’ Association between the management and the workmen thereof
(hereinafter referred to as the parties) except on county questions.
2. The committee to be composed of six members chosen by the Durham
Coal Owners’ Association and six members of the Durham Miners’ Association,
together with an impartial chairman to be chosen annually in March (or at
such other times as the office may become vacant) by the owners’ association
and the Durham County Mining Federation.
3. The owners’ and miners’ associations shall each select a secretary to repre
sent them in the transaction of the business of the committee, and each asso
ciation shall give written notice of such appointment to the other associa
tion, and each such secretary shall remain in office until he shall resign or be
withdrawn by the association which elected him.
The secretaries shall attend all meetings of the committee and be entitled to
take part in the examination of witnesses or in the discussion of any matter
before the committee, but they shall have no power to move or second any reso
lution or to vote on any question before the committee, unless either secretary
be also one of the elected members of the committee, in which case he
shall, in that capacity, have all the rights and privileges of a member.
4. The committee shall, except on county questions, as hereinafter defined,
have full power to settle, either by its own decision or by reference to arbitra
tion or otherwise, all questions relating to wages, rates of payment for altered
methods of working, and all questions or disputes of any other description
which may arise from time to time between the parties at any particular
colliery relating to matters affecting that colliery, and which shall be referred
to the consideration of the committee by either of the parties concerned, and the
decisions of the committee shall be binding.
5. County questions are those in which any decision given by the committee
would establish a precedent affecting either the whole of the collieries in the
county or several collieries, or those which have been decided by the owners’
and miners’ associations to be county questions, or which are under discussion
between the associations as affecting the county. If the hearing of a case is
opposed on the ground of its being a county question, such opposition may be
put forward at any time by either the owners’ or workmen’s association, or by
a member of the committee, or by either secretary of the committee, and the
joint committee shall determine whether the contention that the case is a
county question has been sustained.
6. The collieries are to be classed into three districts, with the following
boundaries:
(a) The east district to comprise all those collieries 'which lie to the east of
the Team Valley Railway.
(b) The north district to comprise all those collieries which lie to the west of
the Team Valley Railway and north of the Lanchester Valley Railway.
(c) The Auckland district to comprise all those collieries which lie to the
west of the Team Valley Railway and south of the Lanchester Valley Railway.
The owner of any colliery situated on the boundary line of any district shall
have the option of choosing the district in which such colliery shall be included.
7. The meetings of the joint committee shall be held in Newcastle-upon-Tyne
or such other convenient place as may be fixed by the committee, and at such
dates and hours as may be fixed by the chairman.
8. In any case brought before the joint committee the owners may be rep
resented by one or more of their agents, and the workmen by any of the work
men employed upon the colliery from which the case is sent or by the check

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

147

weighman of that colliery, but it shall be competent for either side to bring
such witnesses ^s they may deem necessary*
9. The county standard wages and hours of the various classes of workmen
shall be those agreed to between the two associations modified up or down by
any change brought about by any county agreement.
10. All decisions of the committee shall be in accordance with county awards,
county agreements, county customs, and county arrangements, whether sueh are
in writing or otherwise, and the decisions of the committee in all cases shall
be such as to bring practices, hours, or wages as nearly as may be into accord
with the recognized county standards.
11. Before any application for an advance or reduction in the wages of
hewers (including kirvers and tub loaders) shall be entertained it must, except
as provided in rule 12, be clearly shown that the average wage earned by the
same class of persons in the seam (or portion of a seam if cavilled separately)
is at least 5 per cent above or below the recognized county standard rate, but
there shall be excluded from the averages the earnings of any hewers or tub
loaders who are paid an extra price in addition to the ordinary rates in con
sideration of their working at night under any special arrangement
Before any application for an advance or reduction in the wages of any other
classes of workmen paid by the piece shall be entertained it must be clearly
shown, if the application relates to workmen employed underground and paid
by the piece, that the average wage earned by the same class or classes of per
sons in the seam is at least 5 per cent above or below the recognized county
standard rate, or if the application relates to workmen at bank paid by the
piece that the average wage earned by the same class or classes of persons
employed at the pit is at least 5 per cent above or below the recognized county
standard rate.
12. If either party desires a revision of the hewing prices of the various dis
tricts comprising a seam, the joint committee may make such revision or send
it to arbitration, although the average of the seam is not 5 per cent above or
below the county average, provided that in such cases the general average of
the seam prevailing before the revision shall be as nearly as possible maintained.
13. The prices to be paid to hewers or other classes of workmen paid by the
piece employed in new seams or at broken or under any other changed mode
or conditions of working in any seam, for which prices are not already fixed,
shall, on application, be settled by arbitration if they can not be arranged by
mutual agreement or by the joint committee.
14. In cases of extension or recommencement of districts, the prices previously
paid in such districts shall be paid in all extensions of the workings, except
where boundaries are otherwise specifically defined.
15. On the application of the owners or workmen at any colliery an area of.
and distance from goaf governing the payment of broken prices shall, if not
already fixed by agreement or custom, be fixed by the joint committee or
arbitration.
16. All applications by one party for advance or reductions of piecework
prices shall entitle the other side to raise the question of the prices paid to the
same class of workmen throughout the whole of the pit, and all applications for
advances or reductions of the datal wages of any workmen shall entitle the
other side to raise the question of the datal wages paid to workmen of the same
class throughout the whole of the pit, provided that, in either case, not less
than seven clear days before the day appointed for hearing by joint committee,
a statement of any counterclaim intended to be made, together with a state
ment of average earnings or datal wages as provided for in rule 18, shall be
handed to the manager, or, as the case may be, to the workmen of the colliery,
and in the case of hewing prices specifying the names of the districts or flats
where the advances or reductions are sought. The provisions of rule 11 shall
apply to counterclaims in the same way as to original applications.
17. In the event of any change being made by the owners of a colliery in the
methods of working a mine, or any part thereof, or in the conditions under
which the labor concerned is performed, no stoppage of work by the workmen
shall take place, and in the event of a change of wages being awarded by the
committee or arbitration, in consequence of such altered methods or conditions
of working, such change shall take effect from the commencement of the altered
mode or conditions of working.
18. No request for advance, reduction, or revision of piecework prices, or
datal wages, shall be entertained unless a statement showing the average earn
ings per shift, or of the datal wages, has been supplied by the secretary of

148

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

the owners’ or workmen’s side of tlie committee, as the case may be, to the other
secretary at least nine clear days before the date fixed for hearing by joint
committee. In the case of piecework, the averages thus supifiied shall be those
of at least three recent consecutive pays (each given separately) actually re
ceived by the workmen, excluding the first and last pays of each quarter, and
the two pays immediately following the date of a decision, award, or agreement
becoming operative. The averages of seams and of the districts or flats where
the advance, reduction, or revision is asked for, shall be supplied in each case,
and also the numbers and dates of the pays. The joint committee, in considering
and determining claims for advance or reduction of piecework prices, shall be
guided by the difference between the average earnings of the workmen during
the pays for which averages have been supplied and the county standard rate
for the class concerned, and in considering and determining claims respecting
datal wages shall be guided by the difference between the datal wage of the
workmen concerned and the county standard wage for that class.
19. In those cases where either piecework or datal work is possible it shall
be competent for the owners to say which method of payment shall be adopted,
and if the rates are not already fixed therefor to have such fixed on applica
tion to the committee, but failing local agreement, the change in the method
of payment shall not take place until such application to committee be made.
20. When both owners and workmen have cases for consideration, the cases
of each shall be considered alternately, and lists of cases to be considered at
any meeting shall be exchanged between the two secretaries at least 14 days
before such meeting; and it shall not be competent for the committee to dis
cuss any other matter than shall be specified in such lists unless the parties
concerned agree to any very urgent case being heard, and both sides of the
committee concur.
21. Either of the parties may, subject to the conditions of rule 22, object to a
demand made by the other party on the ground that the party submitting the
demand has, within the previous three months, deliberately refused, not
withstanding the protest of the other party, to carry out any county or local
agreement, or any previous decision of the joint committee, or any award; but
if such refusal shall proceed from a bona fide difference of opinion as to the
meaning of any such agreement, decision, or award, the party shall not be
deemed to have refused to carry it out until it has been decided by the joint
committee or arbitration that such party’s interpretation is wrong, and such
party after such decision acts in opposition thereto. If such objection shall be
established under this rule, the claim of the offending party shall not be con
sidered by the committee.
No application shall be entertained from any class of workmen who are shown
to have been restricting their labor within the preceding three months.
22. If any objection is to be raised to the hearing of a claim or counter
claim (except as a county question), written notice stating the particulars of
such objection shall be given to the manager or the workmen of the colliery,
as the case may be, and such notice shall, as regards claims, be given seven
clear days before the day appointed for hearing, and, as regards counterclaims,
four clear days before the day appointed for hearing; but if the cause or ob
jection arises within such seven or four days, then the notice may be given at
any time previous to the time appointed for hearing.
23. The committee shall in all cases, where such is possible, determine the
questions submitted to its consideration without calling upon the chairman for
his casting vote.
24. On any case being submitted to the committee the parties may each state
their case, and may bring forward in support such evidence as they deem nec
essary and as the committee may consider relevant. During the hearing of
evidence there shall be no discussion or argument, the examination of witnesses
being confined to putting the committee into possession of the facts bearing
on the case. When the witnesses have completed their evidence they shall
retire, and the members of the committee shall then discuss and endeavor to
arrive at a decision on the case. In the event of their failing to arrive at a
unanimous decision, any member may propose a motion for settling the matter,
and the chairman shall put such motion to the committee, and it shall be
determined by a vote taken by show of hands. If the votes are equal, the chair
man shall himself decide the question at issue, or shall refer it to arbitration,
or order a report, as he may think fit. If the number of members present rep
resenting the owners and workmen, respectively J is unequal, the voting shall

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

149

be deemed to be equal if all the workmen’s representatives present vote one way
and those of the owners the other.
25. Unless otherwise arranged by mutual agreement by the joint committee or
by arbitration, all advances and reductions shall take effect from the beginning
of the pay commencing first after the date of the decision or award.
26. In the event of any payment of back money being awarded, the chairman
of the joint committee shall decide upon the period (not exceeding 14 weeks
prior to the day appointed for hearing by the joint committee) for which such
payment shall be made.
27. In any case referred to arbitration each party shall appoint a disinter
ested arbitrator within 21 days of the date of the reference; and if within the
said 21 days either of the parties fail to appoint an arbitrator, the arbitrator
appointed shall ask the chairman of the joint committee to authorize him to
hear and determine the matter referred, and make an award which shall be
binding on both parties.
28. If in any case referred to arbitration the arbitrators are unable to decide
on the claim and fail to agree as to the appointment of an umpire, each arbi
trator shall nominate not exceeding two persons, not being colliery owners,
mining engineers having charge of or being interested in any colliery, or mem
bers or officials of any colliery owners’ or workmen’s association, and the chair
man of the joint committee shall appoint a person from among those thus nomi
nated.
29. On any case sent by the committee for report, the persons appointed
shall, if possible, submit their report to the joint committee for the same dis
trict at its next meeting after the date of the reference.
30. In any case referred by the committee for report, if the persons appointed
are unable to agree upon a joint report, they shall submit separate reports show
ing the points on which they differ.
31. Cases shall not be reconsidered until after the lapse of 12 weeks from
the date of their last hearing, or from the date of an award or agreement
affecting the question proposed to be dealt with in the case.
APPENDIX V.~CLEVELAND MINE OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION AND CLEVELAND
MINERS’ & QUARRYMEN’S ASSOCIATION.
R ules for the J oint Committee A ffecting the I ronstone Mines as W ell as
the L ike Committee A ffecting the L imestone Quarries.1

1. The object of the committee shall be to discuss and settle questions (except
such as may be termed district questions or questions affecting the general
trade) relating to wages, practices of working, or any other subject which may
arise from time to time at any particular mine or quarry, and which shall be
referred to the consideration of the committee by the parties concerned. The
committee shall have full power to settle all disputes, and their decision shall be
final and binding upon all parties.
2. The committee shall consist of six representatives chosen by the Cleveland
Mine Owners’ Association, and six representatives chosen by the Cleveland
Miners’ and Quarrymen’s Association.
3. It shall be deemed that there shall be no quorum unless at least three
members of each association be present at a meeting of the committee.
4. Each meeting shall nominate its own chairman, who shall have no casting
vote. In case of equality of votes upon any question it shall be referred to
arbitration, one or more arbitrators, as may be agreed on, to be chosen by the
members of each association present at the meeting, the arbitrators to have
power to appoint an umpire if unable themselves to settle the question at issue.
Decisions, whether come to by the committee or by arbitrators or an umpire,
shall be binding for not less than three calendar months.
5. Each party shall pay its own expenses; the expenses of the umpire to be
borne equally by the two associations.
6. The joint committee shall meet as early as possible, but not later than 21
days after notice has been given of a claim, and when referees are appointed
they shall meet as early as possible to deal with the matter, but not later than
14 days after the date of their appointment.
7. When any subject is to be considered by the committee the secretary of the
association by whom it is brought forward shall give notice thereof to the sec
retary of the other association at least seven days before the meeting at which it
is to be considered.

150

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

8. If any member of the committee is directly interested in any Question under
discussion he shall abstain from voting, and a member of the opposite party shall
also abstain from voting.
9. All questions presented to the committee must have been previously dis
cussed between the workmen and their employers.
10. No alteration or addition to these rules shall be made except after three
months’ notice.
APPENDIX VI.—AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHIPBUILDING EMFX0YERS’
FEDERATION AND SHIPYARD TRADE-BNION&

Agreement made this 9th day of March, 1909, between the Shipbuilding Employers’ Federation, comprising shipbuilders and ship repairers (hereinafter
called the “ federation” ) of the one part, and the United Society of Boiler
makers and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders, Cooperative Smiths’ Society, Associ
ated Blacksmiths’ Society, Combined Smiths of Great Britain and Ireland, Sheet
Iron Workers’, Light Platers’, and Ship Range Makers’ Society, General Union
of Braziers and Sheet Metal Workers, Shipconstractive and Shipwrights’ Associ
ation, Amalgamated Society of Drillers and Hole Cutters, Amalgamated Society
of Carpenters and Joiners, Associated Carpenters and Joiners’ Society, General
Union of Carpenters and Joiners, Amalgamated Union of Cabinetmakers, Na
tional Amalgamated Furnishing Trades’ Association, Amalgamated Society of
Wood-Cutting Machinists, Scottish Saw Mill Operatives’ and Wood-Cutting Ma
chinists’ Society, National Amalgamated Society of Operative House and Ship
Fainters and Decorators, Scottish Amalgamated Society of House and Ship
Painters (hereinafter called the “ unions”) of the other part.
The federation and the unions recognizing that it is in the best interests of
both employers and workmen that arrangements should be made whereby ques
tions arising may be fully discussed and settled without stoppages of work
hereby agree as follows:
Clause L — G eneral flu ctu ation s in w ages.
S ect oar L Changes in wages due to the general conditions of the shipbuilding
industry shall be termed general fluctuations. Such general fluctuations in
wages shall apply to all the trades comprised in this agreement and in every
federated firm at the same time and to the same extent.
Differences in rates of wages in any rade in different districts can be dealt
with as heretofore under clause 2, section 3.
S ec. 2. In the case of all such general fluctuations the following provisions
and procedure shall apply, viz;
(a )
-No step toward an alteration in wages can be taken until after the lapse
of six calendar months from the date of the previous general fluctuation.
(&) Before an application for an alteration can be made there shall be a pre
liminary conference between the federation and the unions, in order to discuss
the position generally. Such conference shall be held within 14 days of the re
quest for same.
(e) No application for an alteration shall be competent until the foregoing
preliminary conference has been held, and no alteration shall take effect within
six weeks of the date of the application.
(d ) The application for a proposed alteration shall be made as follows: The
federation to the unions, parties to this agreement, or the said unions to the
federation.
(e ) Within 14 days after the receipt of an application the parties shall meet
in conference.
i f ) The conference may be adjourned by mutual agreement, such adjourned
conference to be held within 14 days thereafter.
(g ) Any general fluctuation in tradesmen’s rates shall be of the following
fixed amount, viz: Piecework rates, 5 per cent, and time rates, Is. £24.3 cents]
per week, or |d. [0.51 cent] per hour, where payment is made by the hour.
Clause 2.— Q u estions oth er th an general flu ctu ation s in ivages,

S ection 1. When any question is raised by or on behalf of either an employer
or employers, or of a workman or workmen, the following procedure shall be
observed, v iz:
(a) A workman or deputation of workmen shall be received by their em
ployers in the yard or at the place where a question has arisen, by appointment,
for the mutual discussion of any question in the settlement of which both parties

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

151

are directly concerned; and failing arrangement, a further endeavor may, if
desired, be then made to negotiate a settlement by a meeting between the
employer, with or without an official of the local association, on the one hand,
and the official delegate, or other official of the workmen concerned, with or
without the workman or workmen directly concerned, as deemed necessary.
(b ) Failing settlement, the question shall be referred to a joint committee
consisting of three employers and three representatives of the union or of each
of the unions directly concerned, none of whom shall be connected with the yard
or dock where the dispute has arisen.
(c) Failing settlement under subsection (b), the question shall be brought
before the employers’ local association and the responsible local representatives
of the union or unions directly concerned in local conference.
( d ) Failing settlement at local conference, it shall be competent for either
party to refer the question to a central conference to be held between the execu
tive board of the federation and representatives of the union or unions directly
concerned, such representatives to have executive power.
Sec. 2. If the question is in its nature a general one affecting more than one
yard or dock, it shall be competent to raise it direct in local conference, or if it
is general and affecting the federated firms or workmen in more than one
district, it shall be competent to raise it direct in central conference without in
either case going through the prior procedure above provided for.
Sec. 3. The questions hereby covered shall extend to all questions relating to
wages, including district alterations in wages and other matters in the ship
building and ship-repairing trade, which may give rise to disputes.
Clause 3.—Grand conference.
In the event of failure to settle any question in central conference under
elause 2, section 1, subsection (<?), either party desirous to have such question
further considered shall, prior to any stoppage of work, refer same for final
settlement to a grand conference to be held between the federation and all the
unions parties to this agreement.
A conference may by mutual agreement be adjourned.
On any occasion when a settlement has not been reached the conference must
be adjourned to a date not earlier than 14 days nor later than 1 month from,
the date of such conference.
Clause 4.— S ettle m en t of pieceioork questions.

Local arrangements for dealing with questions arising out of piece-price lists,
or in connection with piece prices or piecework, may continue or be established
with the following further provisions, viz:
Failing settlement of any such question under the arrangements already exist
ing or to be established, same shall be referred to a joint committee in accord
ance with clause 2, section 1, subsection (5), and if need be, the further
procedure under same clause, section 1, subsections (c) and i d ) , and clause 3.
Note.—In districts where there is a standing committee the question, instead
of being referred to subsection (ft), will be dealt with under subsection <c),
and if need be, the further procedure named.
The settlement shall be retrospective.
Any claim for alteration of price must be made before the commencement of
the job.
The price to be paid during the time the question is under discussion shall,
failing agreement between the employer and workman or workmen concerned,
be fixed in the following manner, viz: Two or three employers not connected
with the yard where the question has arisen shall give a temporary decision
as to the price to be paid, but said decision shall be without prejudice to
either party, and shall not be adduced in evidence in the ultimate settlement of
the question.
Clause 5.— D em arcation questions.

The existing local arrangements for the settlement of questions with respect
to the demarcation of work shall continue meantime.
Clause 6.— G eneral provisions.

At all meetings and conferences the representatives of both sides shall have
full powers to settle, but it shall be in their discretion whether or not they
conclude a settlement

152

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

In the event of any stoppage of work occurring in any federated yard or
federated district, either in contravention of the foregoing or after the pro
cedure laid down has been exhausted, entire freedom of action is hereby re
served to the federation, and any federated association, and to the unions con
cerned, notwithstanding the provisions of this agreement. The suspension of
the agreement shall be limited to such particular stoppage, and the agreement
in all other respects shall continue in force.
Pending settlement of any question other than questions of wages, hours, and
piece prices (the last named of which is provided for above), two or three
employers not connected with the yard where the question has arisen shall
give a temporary decision, but such decision shall be without prejudice to
either party, and shall not be adduced in evidence in the ultimate settlement
of the question.
The expression “ employer ” throughout this agreement shall include an
employer’s accredited representative.
Until the whole procedure of this agreement applying to the question at
issue has been carried through there shall be no stoppage or interruption of
work either of a partial or of a general character.
C l a u s e 7.— D u ratio n o f agreem en t .
This agreement shall continue in force for three years, and shall hereafter
be subject to six months’ notice in writing on either side, said notice not to be
competent until the three years have elapsed.
A g r e em en t S u p p l e m e n t a r y

S u b s id ia r y to
M a r c h 9, 1909.

and

the

S h ip y a r d A g r e em en t

The federation undertakes and the unions individually and collectively under
take to carry out the shipyard agreement and the further arrangements herein
made.
When parties are in disagreement as to whether or not a stoppage of work in
breach of the shipyard agreement has taken place, the question shall be referred
to a committee of six representatives, who will also decide who is responsible
for the same. Three shall be appointed by each side. They must not be con
nected with the yard or dock where the question has arisen. Work to be pro
ceeded with pending the question being dealt with by the committee, which
should then be immediately called together, but no meeting to be held until work
is in progress.
. In the event of the committee failing to agree, the question shall forthwith
be referred to an independent referee, previously selected by the committee
from a panel chosen as per next clause, whose decision shall be final and binding
on all parties.
The panel from which the referee is to be selected shall consist of persons
mutually agreed upon by the federation and the unions.
Where both sides are in agreement, or where the committee or referee has
decided that a stoppage in breach of the agreement has occurred, the offending
parties are to be dealt with as follows: In the case of the workmen, by the
executive council of the society, in accordance with the rules of the society; and
in the case of an employer, by the executive board of the federation, in accord
ance with the rules of the federation.
It shall be the duty of the committee and of the referee, if need be, in all
cases, to see that individual offenders on either side have been dealt with under
rule, and proof of the enforcement of the rules shall be given by the federation
and the unions to the committee and the referee.
The procedure under clause 4 of the shipyard agreement shall be expedited
so that a claim shall be considered by a joint committee within 7 days of
a request in writing for a meeting, and by local conference within 14 days of
notice of appeal. Where the claim concerns repair work, the procedure shall
be so expedited that the joint committee shall meet before the first pay day, if
practicable, or within three working days. Any appeal to central conference
shall be considered at the first conference held after notice of appeal, the con
ference to be held within three weeks when the circumstances in the opinion of
either side make this desirable.
When both parties are agreed, at the prior joint meeting, that the question to
be determined by a local conference, under said clause 4, is distinctly local
in character, the union concerned shall select from amongst the members of
the Shipbuilding Employers’ Federation and alternately the local association of

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

153

employers shall select from the union affected a chairman, who shall preside
at such local conference, and whose decision in the event of the parties failing
to agree shall be final. Such decision shall not form a precedent in any other
yard or dry dock.
With regard to the settlement of the price to be paid during the time a
question is under discussion, under clause 4 of the shipyard agreement, it is
agreed that settlements shall be made in the yard wherever possible, and that
in arriving at a settlement parties should take into account the practice of the
district and the average wages earned by the workman or workmen concerned
on the same class of work on previous similar vessels in the yard or dry dock
where the question has arisen. The same factors shall be taken into account
when two employers are called in under the agreement to give a temporary de
cision. The decision in either case shall be without prejudice to either party,
and shall not be adduced in evidence in the ultimate settlement of the question.
All sums so paid are to be to account only.
December 8, 1910.

APPENDIX VII.—BUILDING TRADES’ CONCILIATION BOARDS.
R ules for the E stablishment and Governance of Conciliation B oards in
the B uilding T rades. A greed to by a S ubcommittee of E mployers and
Operatives at a Meeting H eld in Manchester on D ecember 5, 1904, and
A mended at the F irst Meeting of the N ational B oard H eld in L ondon
on October 2,1905. F urther A mended at the T hird Meeting of the B oard
H eld in L ondon on May 31, 1907.

(1) The object of the conciliation boards shall be to adjust all questions or dis
putes relating to hours of labor, rates of wages, working rules, and demarcation
of work that may from time to time arise and be referred to them either by
employers or operatives with a view to an amicable settlement of the same
without resorting to strikes or lockouts.
(2) Any dispute or question that may arise shall in the first instance be
dealt with by the joint local trade committee or representatives of the em
ployers and operatives of the trade affected, but if they are unable to come to an
agreement within 14 days, unless the time is extended by mutual consent, or in
cases where a notice or notices have been given by the date upon which such
notice or notices expire, then the case shall be referred to the local conciliation
board for the district, such meetings to be called within 10 days, and pending
a decision of the conciliation boards, local or otherwise, no stoppage of work
shall be allowed on any pretext whatever. If, however, the principal place of
business of the contractor is not situate within the district covered by the local
conciliation board, it shall be competent for him to demand that the case shall
be heard by the center conciliation board of the district where the work is per
formed in lieu of the local conciliation board.
(3) These local conciliation boards shall be formed in all districts where
employers and operatives are sufficiently organized, and such boards shall
consist of two representatives from the local branch of each operatives’ associa
tion that is a party to this agreement, together with an equal number of em
ployers elected by the employers’ general association of the district.
(4) Should the local conciliation board be unable to arrive at a settlement
of any case or matter in dispute within 14 days from the receipt of notice from
either side, unless the time is extended by mutual consent, it shall be the duty
of both the secretaries of the local conciliation board to give notice to the
center conciliation board, and a meeting of the said center board must be held
within 10 days of the receipt of such notice for the purpose of hearing the
appeal from the local board. Should any party to this agreement refuse to
abide by any decision arrived at by the joint committee of the trade affected
or by the local board, such party shall be considered as a delinquent, and their
name or names sent to their respective society or association to be dealt with.
(5) There shall be one center conciliation board for each center district of the
employers’ national federation that may be a party to this agreement, which
center board shall consist of two representatives from each of the operatives’
general associations parties hereto and a like number of employers elected by
the federations forming the centers.
(6) Should the center conciliation board be unable to agree after all matters,
minutes, and correspondence in reference to the question at issue have been
duly considered, it shall be competent for either side within seven days after the
sitting of the center board to appeal to the national board of conciliation.
31326°—Bull. 98—12-----11

154

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

(7) The national board of conciliation shall consists of 16 employers elected
by the national federation of building trades’ employers, and a like number of
operatives elected by the general associations of operatives that are parties to
this agreement, and the board shall meet within 10 days of the receipt of
notice of appeal to consider any case referred from the center conciliation
boards.
(8) The employers and operatives on the several boards shall respectively
appoint each a secretary who shall summon the meetings, keep the minutes,
and generally carry on the business of the boards under the directions of the
members at their officially summoned meetings.
(9) All meetings of the several boards shall be convened by the joint sec
retaries.
(10) In case of an appeal being made either from a local to a center board
or from a center to the national board the secretaries of the local or center
boards shall attend before the center or national board, as the case may be,
with all minutes and correspondence relating to the case, and the local parties
interested therein may also attend before the board for the purpose of support
ing their case or giving information only.
(11) No subject shall be brought forward at any meeting of the boards except
with the consent of a two-thirds majority of the representatives present, unless
seven days* notice thereof has been given to the joint secretaries.
(12) A majority of the representatives on each side shall constitute a quorum
at any meeting of the boards. The voting power of employers and operatives
to be equal in all cases.
(13) The decision of any of the boards to be binding must be carried by a
majority of votes of those present, and in the event of the attendance on each
side being unequal, a unanimous vote of the numerically weaker party shall
be considered equal in number to the unanimous vote of the stronger side, and
the result shall be a tie; but should there be cross voting the decision shall be
given in favor of the side securing a majority of such cross votes. The chair
man shall have one vote only as a member of the board and shall not be entitled
to give a casting vote.
(14) If any of the representatives on any of the boards die, resign, or other
wise cease to be qualified, a successor shall be appointed; and should any
representative be unable to attend any meeting of the boards a duly appointed
substitute may attend in his place.
(15) Any party to this agreement wishing to withdraw therefrom may do so
by giving six months’ notice in writing to the joint secretaries, to expire on
May 1.
(16) Though in all ordinary cases the procedure shall follow the rules above
written, yet for the purpose of more quickly arriving at an agreement on mat
ters in dispute, it shall be competent for any of the several boards by mutual
and unanimous consent of the two parties to call in an arbitrator or arbitrators
with power to settle the dispute, and where this is done the decision of such
arbitrator or arbitrators shall be final and binding. In the event of an arbi
trator or arbitrators being called in by any of the boards the costs, if any,
shall be borne in equal shares by the employers and operatives unless left to
the discretion of the arbitrator or arbitrators by mutual consent of the board.
(17) Although the principal objects of the conciliation boards are the settle
ment of disputes as set forth in rule 1, it shall also be within their province to
meet and discuss any question of trade interest at the request of any of the
parties to this agreement, providing that a fortnight’s notice in writing has
been given to the joint secretaries of the board concerned setting forth the mat
ter it is desired to discuss.
(18) The several boards shall meet annually in May to elect the officers for
the ensuing year and to transact such other business as may be necessary. The
names of the representatives elected on the board for each year, commencing
May 1, must be forwarded to the joint secretaries at least 14 days before that
date.
(19) Any party desiring an alteration of these rules shall give six months’
notice in writing to the joint secretaries of the national board prior to the
annual meeting thereof, and such notice shall at once be communicated to all
the parties to this agreement, and the national board shall have power to alter
this agreement by a majority of votes of those present at the annual meeting
thereof.
May 31, 1907.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.
R e g u l a t io n s G o v e r n in g P rocedure A greed to a t a M e e t in g of
C o u n c il B oard H eld i n L o n d o n , M a y 31, 1907.

the

155
N a t io n a l

(a) Tlie area of jurisdiction of any conciliation board shall be the area in
which the rules between the masters’ association and the operatives’ societies
apply. In the event of an appeal being made to any of the several boards to
consider a dispute and one side objecting on the ground that it is out of
order, then the chairman, vice chairman, and two secretaries of the board
concerned shall at once meet to consider the question and decide whether a
meeting of the board shall be called. In those eligible localities where boards
are not already formed, either section may take the initiative in forming or
convening a meeting for the purpose of forming the local boards.
(&) The matter to be submitted to the conciliation board should be defi
nitely and specifically drawn up by the secretary of the party lodging the com
plaint or appeal, so as to enable the board to consider and, if possible, give a
decision upon the precise matters submitted to them. The case to be stated
and the evidence taken should be scrupulously confined to the matter or matters
definitely set forth in the appeal.
(c) The conciliation board shall have power to amend the appeal to effectu
ate the real intention of the parties where the appeal has been erroneously
or insufficiently drawn up. If a proposed alteration is a material one or will
introduce new matter there must be the consent of a majority of the board, the
voting to be taken as provided by the rules.
(d ) The date of the appeal shall be taken to be the date when application
was made by one of the contracting parties to the joint secretaries of the con
ciliation board.
( e ) The proceedings at an appeal shall commence by the appellants making
short statements of their case and calling witnesses in support of same. The
other parties shall be entitled to make a short statement of their case, call
witnesses, and produce evidence. The appellants shall have a right to reply.
All witnesses to be subject to cross-examination.
(/) Witnesses shall only give evidence on matters which are within their
personal knowledge, and hearsay evidence shall not be admitted. In case of
illness or any other cause which makes it absolutely impossible for a witness
to be present, the written statement of such witness shall be admitted, but
must be signed and attested by two witnesses.
(g ) All evidence and information in relation to the matter under consider
ation communicated by one of the parties or their witnesses or agents shall
be in the presence of the other parties.
( h ) All the evidence to be submitted by both parties shall be heard before
the case is closed by the conciliation board.
(i) When the case has been formally closed the parties and witnesses shall
retire, and no further evidence shall be heard or information communicated.
(;) If a member of the conciliation board has represented one of the par
ties as a witness during the hearing he shall retire when the case has been
closed and not take any part in the deliberation of the board while consider
ing the evidence and arriving at their decision.
(1c) Draft minutes of all meetings shall be mutually approved by the joint
secretaries within a short period (say five days), and the record in both min
ute books should be identical therewith.
(l) These regulations are for the purpose of effectually carrying out the
rules already agreed upon for the establishment and governance of concilia
tion boards, and any determination of the said rules, either by effluxion of
time or notice given by any of the parties thereto, will apply with equal force
to these regulations.
(m ) Any party desiring an alteration of these regulations shall give six
months’ notice in writing to the joint secretaries of the national board prior
to the annual meeting thereof, and such notice shall at once be communicated
to all the parties to this agreement, and the national board shall have power
to alter these regulations by a majority of votes of those present at the annual
meeting thereof.
May 31, 1907.
S t a n d in g O rders G o v e r n in g P rocedure i n D e b a t e , A greed to
t h e N a t io n a l C o u n c il B oard H eld i n L o n d o n , M a y

at a

M e e t in g

31, 1907.
(a) All motions or amendments shall be reduced to writing by the proposer
or seconder immediately on their being seconded.

156

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

(6) Whenever an amendment is made on an original proposition, no further
amendment shall be taken into consideration until the first has been dis
posed of.
( o ) If the first amendment be carried, it becomes itself an original question,
whereupon a further amendment may be moved.
(d ) If the first amendment be negatived, then a second may be moved upon
the original question under consideration; but only one amendment shall be
submitted to the meeting at one time.
(e) The mover of any original resolution, or of an amendment carried, shall
have a right to reply before the question is put from the chair; but no other
member shall be allowed to speak more than once on the same question, unless
fresh evidence is introduced or the attention of the chair be called to a point
of order.
May 31, 1907.
APPENDIX VIII.—BR00KLANDS AGREEMENT.

Among the numerous collective agreements between employers and
employed in the cotton-spinning industry the most important is the
general treaty known as “ the Brooklands Agreement,” which was
arrived at upon the conclusion of the great dispute in the spinning
trade of 1892-93. The terms of this agreement have subsequently
been in certain respects modified and, as at present in force,1 read as
follows:

[The amendments are printed in italics.]
1. The representatives of the employers and the representatives of the em
ployed, in the pending dispute, hereby admit that disputes and differences be
tween them are inimical to the interests of both parties, and that it is expedi
ent and desirable that some means should be adopted for the future whereby
such disputes and differences may be expeditiously and amicably settled and
strikes and lockouts avoided.
2. That the pending dispute be settled by a reduction of seven-pence (7d.)
[14.2 cents] in the pound (£) [$4.8665] in the present wages of the operative
cotton spinners, card and blowing room hands, reelers, winders, and others,
such reductions to take effect forthwith, and the mills to resume work on
Monday next, the 27th instant (Mar. 27, 1893).
3. That when the employers and employed next agree upon an increase in
the standard wages of the operative cotton spinners, card and blowing room
hands, and others who participated in the last advance in wages, such increase
shall not exceed the reduction now agreed upon, unless in the meantime there
shall have been a further reduction of such wages, in which case, should an
advance be agreed to, the employed shall be entitled to an advance equal in
amount to the last preceding reduction, plus the reduction of seven pence [14.2
cents] in the pound [$4.8665] now agreed upon, provided always that no appli
cation for an increase or reduction of such wages as now agreed upon shall be
made for the period of six calendar months from the date hereof.
4. That subject to the last preceding clause, and with a view to prevent the
cotton-spinning trade from being in an unsettled state too frequently from
causes such as the present dispute, to the disadvantage of all parties con
cerned, no advance or reduction in such wages as aforesaid shall in future
be sought for by the employers or the employed until after the expiration of at
least one year from the date of the previous advance or reduction, as the case
may be; nor shall any such advance or reduction, when agreed upon, be more or
less than 5 per cent upon the then current standard wages being paid. [Not
withstanding anything hereinbefore contained in this clause, whenever a general
demand for an advance or decrease of wages shall be made, the wages of the
male card and blowing room operatives may be increased or decreased to such
an extent as may be mutually agreed to.]a12
1 On July 15, 1910, an agreement was arrived at by which in clause 4 “ two years ” is
substituted for “ one year,” and that no demand for a change in present wages is to be
made for five years from that date. This agreement was signed on Aug. 8.
2 The words in brackets in clause 4 were deleted by agreement made between the em
ployers and workpeople on Apr. 26, 1900.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

157

5. That the secretary of the local employers’ association and the secretary
of the local trades-union shall give to the other of them, as the case may be,
one calendar month’s notice, in writing, of any and every general demand for
a reduction or an advance of the wages then being paid.
6. That in future no local employers’ association, nor the federated associa
tion of employers, on the one hand, nor any trades-union or federation of tradesunions, on the other hand, shall countenance, encourage, or support any lockout
or strike which may arise from, or be caused by any question, difference, or
dispute, contention, grievance, or complaint, with respect to work, wages, or
any other matter, unless and until the same has been submitted in writing by
the secretary of the local employers’ association to the secretary of the local
trades-union, or by the secretary of the local trades-union to the secretary of
the local employers’ association, as the case may be; nor unless and until such
secretaries or a committee consisting of three representatives of the local tradesunion with their secretary, and three representatives of the employers’ associa
tion with their secretary, shall have failed, after full inquiry, to settle and
arrange such question, difference, or dispute, contention, complaint, or griev
ance, within the space of seven days from the receipt of the communication in
writing aforesaid; nor unless and until, failing the last-mentioned settlement
or arrangement, if either of the secretaries of the local trades-union or local
employers’ association shall so deem it advisable, a committee consisting of
four representatives of the federated association of employers, with their secre
tary, and four representatives of the amalgamated association of the operatives’
trades-unions, with their secretary, shall have failed to settle or arrange, as
aforesaid, within the further space of seven days from the time when such
matter was referred to them, provided always that the secretaries or the com
mittee hereinbefore mentioned, as the case may be, shall have power to extend
or enlarge the said periods of seven days whenever they may deem it expedient
or desirable to do so. S h ou ld e ith e r th e local em ployers' association or th e
local o p era tives' association fa il to call such a m eetin g w ith in seven d ays
( unless b y consent o f th e o th er s id e ), th en th e p a r ty w h ich has a sked fo r th e

m eetin g sh all h ave th e rig h t to a t once ca rry th e qu estion before th e jo in t com
m itte e o f th e em ployers' fed era tio n and th e opera tives' am a lgam a tion w ith o u t
fu rth e r referen ce to th e local association , and should eith e r th e em ployers'
fed era tio n or th e o pera tives' am algam ation fa il to deal w ith th e m a tte r in dis
pu te w ith in a fu rth e r seven d a y s , th en eith er side sh all be a t lib e rty to ta k e
such action as th e y m a y th in k fit.
W hen bad spin n in g is alleged by th e o p era tives , an d fa ilin g to obta in sa tis
fa ctio n fro m th e em ployer, it is h ereby agreed th a t th e sam e sh all be exam in ed
w ith in th ree d a y s o f w ritte n n otice fro m th e o pera tives' a sso cia tio n ; but in case
such th ree days* n otice term in a tes on a S a tu rd a y , th en th e follo w in g M onday
sh a ll be reckoned one o f th e th ree d a y s. F ailin g an agreem en t being a rrived a t
by th e officials o f both a ssociation s , a jo in t m eetin g of th e local co m m ittee
sh all be held w ith in seven d a y s fro m th e d a te of origin al n otice to th e local
em ployers' secreta ry. In case o f fa ilu re , th e course of procedu re sh all be
according to No. 6 clause of th e B rooklan ds A greem en t , so fa r as regards th e
opera tives' am a lgam a tion an d th e em ployers' federatio n .1
6a. W hen th e procedu re o f clau se 6 has been gone through w ith o u t a se ttle
m en t h avin g been effected and a strik e or lockou t has ta k en place , th e d isp u te
su bco m m ittees o f th e organ ization s w h ich are p a rties to th e d isp u te sh a ll , w ith
ou t an y fo rm a l app lication being m ade by eith e r sid e , m eet m M anchester a t th e
sam e place and hour as th e la st m eetin g p rio r to th e strik e or lockou t , com m enc
in g w ith in a period n ot exceeding 14 d a ys fro m th e com m encem ent o f th e strik e
or lockou t , and subsequ en t m eetin gs sh all be held in M anchester u n til th e strik e
or lockout is term in a ted , a t th e sam e place and hour , a t period s n ot exceeding
fo u r w eek s fro m th e d a te of th e la st m eeting.12
7. Should a n y firm m ak e a n y change w h ich w h en com pleted in vo lves an a ltera
tion in th e w o rk or ra te o f w ages o f th e o p era tives w h ich is con sidered n ot
sa tisfa c to ry by th em , th en th e firm sh all a t once place th e m a tte r in th e hands
o f th eir a ssociation , w h o sh all im m e d ia te ly ta k e action as p er clau se 6 , fa ilin g
w h ich th e o p era tives in vo lved sh all have th e rig h t to ten d er n otices to cease
w o rk w ith o u t fu rth e r n otice to th e em ployers' association . W hen a settlem en t
is a rrived a t , it sh all d a te fro m th e tim e th e change w a s m ade.

8. Every local employers’ association or the federated association of em
ployers, on the one hand, and every local trades-union or the federation of
trades-unions, on the other hand, shall, with as little delay as possible, furnish
1This clause was adopted October 18, 1900.
2 This clause was adopted September 29, 1911.

158

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

to tlie other of them, in writing, full and precise particulars with reference to
any and every question, difference or dispute, contention, complaint, or griev
ance, with a view to the same being settled and arranged at the earliest possible
date, in the manner hereinbefore mentioned.
9. T h ere sh a ll n o t be placed upon an y jo in t co m m ittee o f th e fe d e ra te d asso
cia tio n an d th e a m a lgam a ted association m ore th an one m em b er o f th e local
em ployers' association and one m em ber o f th e local trades-u n ion , in a d d itio n
to th e re sp ectiv e secreta ries o f th ose bodies . T he r e s t o f th e sa id jo in t com
m itte e sh all co n sists o f person s w h o h ave n o t loca lly a d ju d ica te d upon th e
m a tte r in question,. I t is u n derstoo d th a t in case o f u n avoidab le absen ce o f
secreta ry a su b stitu te m a y be presen t to a c t in sam e ca p a city as secreta ry.

10. It is agreed that in respect to the opening of new markets abroad, the
alteration of restrictive foreign tariffs, and other similar matters which may
benefit or injure the cotton trade, the same shall be dealt with by a com
mittee of three or more from each federation, all the associations agreeing to
bring the whole weight of their influence to bear in furthering the general
interests of the cotton industry in this country.
11. The above committee shall meet whenever the secretary of either federa
tion shall be of opinion that questions affecting the general interest of the cotton
trades should be discussed.
12. The representatives of the employers and the representatives of the em
ployed in the pending dispute do hereby mutually undertake that they will use
their best endeavors to see that the engagements hereinbefore respectively
entered into by them are faithfully carried out in every respect.

The agreement is signed on behalf of the Federation of Master
Cotton Spinners’ Associations, the Amalgamated Association of Op
erative Cotton Spinners, the Amalgamated Association of Card and
Blowing Boom Operatives, and the Amalgamated Northern Counties
Association of Warpers, Beelers, and Winders (now the Amalga
mated Weavers’, Winders’, Warpers’, Beelers’ and Winders’ Associ
ation) .
By an agreement made on March 30, 1906, between the Federation
of Master Cotton Spinners’ Associations, on the one hand, and the
Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners, on the other
hand, the following amendment was made in the Brooklands Agree
ment, so far as it relates to dealing with complaints of bad spinning:
When a settlement has been arrived at by the federation and amalgamation
committees in a bad spinning complaint, and there be any further cause for
such a complaint within a period of three months from the date of the afore
said settlement, then the federation and the spinners’ amalgamation shall
appoint from the joint committee which has previously dealt with the case,
one or more persons to inspect the spinning within a period of three days.
Where practicable, the same persons shall be appointed who have previously
made an inspection. In the event of these persons failing to bring about a
settlement, then a joint meeting of the federation and amalgamation subcom
mittees shall be called within three days of either party requesting same.
Should such a joint meeting not be able to arrive at a settlement, then the
operatives shall have the right to tender notices to cease work on any making-up
day within 21 days from the date of such joint committee meeting. Should
notices not be tendered within the 21 days, then any further complaint up to
the expiration of the three months shall be dealt with as hereinbefore provided.
After three months from the first settlement, any complaint shall be con
sidered to be a new case, to be dealt with in accordance with clause 6 of the
Brooklands Agreement relating to bad spinning.

The Brooklands agreement affects in all some 150,000 operatives
employed in Lancashire and the adjoining counties (at Ashton, Bol
ton, Bury, Chorley, Darwen, Farnworth, Glossop, Hevwood, Man
chester, Oldham, Bawtenstall, Bochdale, and Stockport).

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

159

APPENDIX IX,—AGREEMENT OF NORTH AND NORTHEAST LANCASHIRE
COTTON SPINNERS’ AND MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION AND AMAL
GAMATED WEAVERS’ ASSOCIATION.
J o in t R u l e s

fo b t h e

S e t t l e m e n t of T rade D is p u t e s i n
in g , a n d W a r p in g D e p a r t m e n t s .

the

W e a v in g , W in d

The object of these rules is to secure the consideration and settlement of
trade disputes in their early stages, and thereby to preserve good feeling
between employers and operatives. For the purpose of carrying out this object
it is agreed as follows:
1. In the event of a trade dispute arising between any member of an asso
ciation comprised in the North and Northeast Lancashire Cotton Spinners’ and
Manufacturers’ Association, and any operative member or members of an asso
ciation comprised in the Amalgamated Weavers’ Association, the following
course shall be taken:
(a ) Before any notices shall be given by either party to terminate employ
ment, for the purpose of a lockout or strike, the dispute shall be brought forth
with before a local joint meeting of representatives of employers appointed
by the local employers’ association and of operatives appointed by the local
operatives’ association, and such meeting shall be held within four days (ex
clusive of Sunday) from the date of an application by either party for such
meeting; and if a settlement of the dispute be not come to at that meeeting, or
at an adjournment thereof, then
(&) Before any notices shall be given by either party to terminate employ
ment, for the purpose of a lockout or strike, the dispute shall be brought before
a joint meeting of representatives of the North and Northeast Lancashire
Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Association and of the Amalgamated
Weavers’ Association, and such meeting shall be held within seven days from
the date of an application by either party for such meeting; and if a settlement
of the dispute be not come to at that meeting, or at an adjournment thereof,
then
(c) Before any notices shall be given by either party to terminate employ
ment, for the purpose of a lockout or strike, the dispute shall be brought
before a joint meeting of representatives of the North and Northeast Lancashire
Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Association and of the Northern Counties
Textile Trades Federation, and such -meeting shall be held within seven days
from the date of an application by either party for such meeting; and if a
settlement be not come to at such meeting, or at an adjournment thereof,
then either party shall be at liberty to take whatever course it thinks fit.
2. In the event of a complaint of bad material which the local secretaries of
the respective associations have been unable to settle, the local secretary of the
operatives’ association shall have power to claim a joint inspection by represent
atives of employers and of operatives of the material complained of at the mill
where such material had been given out for work, in which case each associa
tion shall appoint representatives to make such a joint inspection within three
days (Sundays excepted) from the making of such claim, and failing a satis
factory settlement at such joint inspection or at an agreed adjournment thereof,
or if facilities be not given for a joint inspection within such period as afore
said, or within such extended time, as may be mutually agreed upon between the
secretaries of the two local associations, the complaint shall then be regarded as
a trade dispute and be subject to the procedure provided by rule 1 hereof in
relation to trade disputes.
3. Any determination of a dispute as to a weaving price shall take effect from
the time when the work was given out to the operative, except in cases of new
cloth for which no definite provision is made in the Uniform List of Prices for
Weaving, or the Colne and District Standard List of Prices for Weaving
Colored Goods, or any other lists for weaving which are recognized by the
North and Northeast Lancashire Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Asso
ciation, or for which no price has been officially fixed by the two associations,
and in either of those cases the weaving price and the time when it shall take
effect shall be mutually arranged between the employers’ association and the
operatives’ association, and failing agreement in any case, such disagreement
shall be regarded as a trade dispute, and be subject to the procedure pro
vided by rule 1 hereof in relation to trade disputes.
4. In cases of underpayment of the Uniform List of Prices for Weaving, or
the Colne and District Standard List of Prices for Weaving Colored Goods, or
any other lists for weaving which are recognized by the North and Northeast

160

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

Lancashire Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Association, and where such
underpayment is admitted by the employer, or where the accused employer
refuses to consent to a joint inspection of work on application by the employers’
secretary, the operatives shall be at liberty to take whatever action they think
tit without the necessity of bringing the matter before either the local or central
employers’ associations.
5. Whenever a settlement of any trade dispute shall not have been come to
and operatives are on strike or locked out of employment in consequence thereof,
then meetings shall be held periodically between representatives of the North
and Northeast Lancashire Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Association
and of the Northern Counties Textile Trades Federation; the first of such meet-'
ings shall be held in Manchester four weeks after and at the same place and
hour as the last meeting of representatives in the same dispute, and sub
sequent meetings shall be held at the same place and hour periodically every
four weeks until the dispute be settled, and without any formal application by
either party for any such meeting.
6. If the attendance of any person or persons is desired by either party at
any meeting to be held for the consideration of a trade dispute, and notice in
writing is given to the other party of such desire, each party will, when so
desired, request such person or persons to attend the meeting.
7. In the event of an application being made by the operatives in any sec
tion for an advance of wages, or by the employers in any section for a reduc
tion of wages, such application, if not granted, shall, before any notices are
given by either party to terminate employment, for the purpose of a strike or
lockout, be brought before a joint meeting of representatives of the North and
Northeast Lancashire Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Association and of
the Amalgamated Weavers’ Association, and such meeting shall be held within
seven days from the date of an application by either party for such meeting,
and if a settlement be not come to at such meeting, or at an adjournment
thereof, then, before any notices shall be given by either party to terminate
employment, for the purpose of a strike or lockout, the matter shall be brought
before a joint meeting of representatives of the North and Northeast Lancashire
Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Association and of the Northern Counties
Textile Trades Federation, and such meeting shall be held in Manchester within
seven days from the date of an application by either party for such meeting,
and if a settlement be not come to at such meeting, or at an adjournment
thereof, then either party shall be at liberty to take whatever course it thinks fit.
8. All meetings shall be held at such time and place as may be mutually
agreed upon between the officials of the employers’ and operatives’ associations.
9. The proceedings at joint meetings shall be regarded as strictly private and
confidential. Every question discussed, every statement made, and every opin
ion expressed shall be treated by each person present as strictly private and
confidential, and shall not be communicated to any outside person or to the
press except by direction or permission of the meeting, and the name of any
person attending a meeting or the particular part taken by any person in any
of the discussions shall not be quoted at any public meeting.
10. An application by the employers for a meeting with representatives of
the Amalgamated Weavers’ Association may be addressed to Mr. Joseph Cross,
Ewbank Chambers, Accrington, or to the secretary for the time being, and an
application by the employers for a meeting with representatives of the Northern
Counties Textile Trades Federation may be addressed to Mr. Thomas Shaw, 122
Skipton Road, Colne, or to the secretary for the time being. An application by
the operatives for a meeting with representatives of the North and Northeast
Lancashire Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Association may be addressed
to Mr. John Taylor or Mr. F. A. Hargreaves, 12 Exchange Street, Manchester, or
to the secretary for the time being.
11. In the event of an association, either of employers or operatives, failing to
appoint a time for and to give notice to the secretary of the other association
affected by a dispute of a joint meeting to deal with such dispute, in accord
ance with these rules and within the period limited for such purpose, or within
such extended period as may be mutually agreed upon between the secretaries
of the two associations, then either party shall be at liberty to take whatever
course it thinks fit.
September 3, 1910.

ATTITUDE OE EMPLOYING INTERESTS TOWARD CONCILIATION
AND ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.
BY A. MAURICE LOW, M. A.
INTRODUCTION.

The investigation which furnished the basis of the present report
was planned in July, 1911, and was to be made beginning the fol
lowing month. But in that month the United Kingdom was in the
throes of one of the greatest strikes of modern times, and it is neces
sary to emphasize this as coloring the views of employers. Thus, one
extensive employer of labor remarked, when asked his views on concil
iation and arbitration, and especially the act of 1896, “Arbitration
is impossible; the whole scheme has broken down.” This, it may be
added, is an extreme view and was not generally shared by employ
ers. Nevertheless, the great industrial convulsion which had recently
paralyzed industrialism, caused the price of food to advance in Lon
don, Liverpool, and other large cities, brought about the enforced
idleness of hundreds of thousands of men, and made it necessary for
the authorities to bring troops from their regular stations to guard
railway property and protect the men who had not gone out—and
the use of the military in England in labor disputes is only resorted
to on rare occasions-—naturally made employers take a somewhat dif
ferent view of the efficacy of conciliation and arbitration from what
undoubtedly would have been taken a year or even six months earlier.
Remembering this, it is not surprising that some employers should
feel that state-recognized arbitration, or any scheme to prevent labor
disputes, although theoretically ideal, is practically impossible.
The strike of 1911 began with a dispute between the dockers and
their employers in the north of England, which was attended with
some violence, and spread, involving other trades, until finally it
embraced nearly all the great railway systems of the country. At the
time of the outbreak standing arrangements for conciliation and ar
bitration were in force in a number of the leading industries of Great
Britain. Many of these were directly due and many others owed
their origin indirectly to the conciliation act of 1896. This act made
the arbitration act of 1889 inoperative so far as labor disputes are
concerned, and that act repealed acts and parts of acts passed in the
reigns of William III, William IV, and Victoria. The conciliation
act of 1896 was the last and most progressive word in labor legisla

161

162

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

tion at the time of its enactment, and was intended to supersede all
previews statutes on that subject. It has had such an important bear
ing upon the development of conciliation and arbitration in Great
Britain that the question can hardly be discussed without some ref
erence to its provisions.
VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF PROVISIONS FOR CONCILIATION AND
ARBITRATION.

The text of the act is given elsewhere in this bulletin and need
not be repeated here.1 It should be carefully noted, however, what
the act does and does not do. The old conception of a legislative
enactment was that a law was designed either to prevent the com
mission of a certain act or to punish the transgressor. Modern
progress has in many instances—and this statute is an example—
made a law not mandatory but permissive, the purpose being to
assist society by the official machinery of the state and the exercise
of its friendly offices as a disinterested and impartial party. It
implies at the outset voluntary submission as opposed, for instance,
to the compulsory submission of an offender brought before a court of
justice, which has the whole power of the state at its command to
enforce obedience.
Official recognition is given by the act to conciliation boards, but
it is optional whether any board shall ask for that recognition. The
Board of Trade may, on its own initiative, inquire into a difference
existing or apprehended between employers and their workmen;
it may try to reconcile these differences, but it has no power to com
pel a settlement; on the application of either side it can appoint a
conciliator; on the application of both sides it can appoint an
arbitrator. These powers conferred by the act, it will be seen,
are merely the exercise of friendly offices. They are the same func
tions constantly performed in private life by an individual who is
anxious to prevent misunderstandings between his friends or who
seeks to remove misapprehension. He can argue and plead, he can
offer his services as an intermediary or as an arbiter; he can appeal
to their good sense or their self-interest, but he is without coercive
powers. The Board of Trade as a branch of the Government, which
means the delegated authority of society, can do no more. There
are no penal clauses in the act. The power conferred on the Board
of Trade to inquire into a dispute is valuable as giving the public,
which is usually ignorant of the merits of a particular case, an
official and impartial report. The other powers are also valuable*
when both sides are willing to submit their difference to conciliation
or arbitration, but of no value at all when one side is stubborn or

1 See pp. 140 and 141.

EMPLOYEES9 ATTITUDE TOWARD CONCILIATION----GREAT BRITAIN. 1 6 3

violent or considers that a principle is at stake which does not
admit of outside intervention.
While the words conciliation and arbitration are bracketed to
gether so that in the minds of some people their meaning is synony
mous, there is, as a matter of fact, a very wide difference between
the two. Voluntary conciliation most people agree is feasible and
usually productive of good results; arbitration that does not provide
for an automatic execution of the award, but merely gives a decision
which either side may disregard with impunity, can never be any
thing but unsatisfactory.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.

The difference between conciliation and arbitration is, to employ
a simile, the difference between medicine and surgery; and it is
further the difference between the science of preventive and curative
medicine. The object of conciliation is to prevent an industrial
illness; the arbitrator is called in when the only way to restore health
is an operation. The whole theory of conciliation on which all the
conciliation schemes and boards are modeled, is to provide a means
whereby employers and employees may be brought together, may
meet on an equality and sitting at the same table with, for the time
being, all class and social distinctions abolished, freely interchange
views and endeavor to adjust grievances, whether real or imaginary.
The process implies mutual forbearance and often leads to a more
intimate knowledge on the part of the employees of the facts gov
erning a particular industry, and on the part of the employers of
conditions existing among the workers. It must in the nature of
things be voluntary and the proceedings must be carried on in an,
amicable spirit. A conciliation scheme would be useless that oper
ated after blows were struck; it is to prevent a blow, to eliminate
friction, to prevent discontent, or to remove dissatisfaction that con
ciliation can and has in the past accomplished a great service in
industry.
Arbitration, on the other hand, can only be employed when the
issue is joined. Usually the arbitrator, like the surgeon, is called
in after the injury has been done. There is preventive surgery as
there is preventive medicine, and a surgeon sometimes performs a
minor operation to obviate the necessity of a more serious one later.
Occasionally a dispute is referred to an arbitrator when it is still
trifling and both sides are in a conciliatory mood and would rather
have peace than war, but that is the exception. Almost invariably
the services of the arbitrator are requisitioned not to prevent war but
to try to bring about peace; not to remove the cause of complaint
but to try to patch up a truce; but unless both sides abide by his
decision his efforts, of course, have been in vain.

164

BULLETIN OF THE BUBEAU OF LABOR.
RAILWAY CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SCHEME OF 1907.

As has already been mentioned, public opinion, at the time this
investigation was undertaken, had just been powerfully influenced
by the railway strike of 1911. The effect of this strike will be more
readily appreciated if it is remembered that for four years an agree
ment, which was supposed to render strikes and. lockouts impossible,
had been in force on all the leading railroads. On the 6th of Novem
ber, 1907, representatives of some of the most important railway
companies in England met at the Board of Trade and there signed
an agreement1 in regard to a scheme for conciliation and arbitra
tion relating to rates of wages and hours of labor, which agreement
was also signed by the representatives of the men. Subsequently
practically all the English and Scotch and the leading Irish rail
way companies became parties to the scheme, and so that it might
be fairly tested it was agreed that it should remain in force for seven
years. With inconsequential modifications to suit local or individual
conditions the scheme offered by the Board of Trade was accepted
by the various railway companies and their employees.
So well satisfied was the Board of Trade that it had at last been
able to find a means whereby industrial peace was secured in the
railway world that the comptroller general of the labor department,
in reporting to the secretary of the Board of Trade, in February,
1909, said:
In the aggregate the companies that thus have a conciliation scheme
in operation employ over 97 per cent of the railway servants in the
United Kingdom, and as the proportion in the case of the grades
affected by the scheme would be about the same, it may be inferred
that the effect of the arrangements entered into is to render practically
impossible a strike or lockout among the men employed in working
the traffic on the railways of the country.12
In forwarding this report to the president of the Board of Trade,
the permanent secretary of the board wrote:
It was not to be expected that so great a change in the methods of
settling differences as to labor conditions on the railways would be
carried through without some difficult questions arising as to the
scope and meaning of particular provisions of the agreement and the
methods of giving effect thereto. Mr. Askwith’s report shows, how
ever, that he has not found any of the questions that have arisen to
be incapable of adjustment, and it is most gratifying to be able to
state that the scheme of conciliation and arbitration contemplated
in the agreement signed at the Board of Trade may now be said to
be established, and- that it has already borne fruit in the amicable
1 For terms of this agreement, see pp. 117-120.
2 Report to the Board of Trade upon Matters connected with the Establishment and

Working of Railway Conciliation Boards, set up in accordance with the Agreement of the

6th November, 1907, p. 6. London, 1909.

EMPLOYERS* ATTITUDE TOWARD CONCILIATION— GREAT BRITAIN, 1 6 5

settlement of important questions which might otherwise have led
to prolonged disputes.1
In a report made in August, 1910, the latest publication on the sub
ject, Mr. W. F. Marwood, of the railway department of the Board of
Trade, reporting to the secretary, says:
A report upon the establishment and preliminary working of the
conciliation boards set up under that agreement was issued in Feb
ruary, 1909 (No. Cd. 4534). As shown therein it was provided by
the scheme that any application for a change in rates of wages or
hours of labor of a class of employees must first be made in the usual
course through the officers of the department concerned. If the
claim put forward were not mutually settled, it could be referred to a
sectional conciliation board, representing a particular group of
graded, including the one affected; failing an agreement by that
board, the matter could go to the central conciliation board, repre
senting all grades within the scheme; and, finally, recourse could
be had, if necessary, to arbitration. There are thus four distinct
stages at which it is possible for a decision to be arrived at upon
claims submitted.12
Yet in a year after these expressions of confidence in the feasi
bility of the scheme it had broken down, the railways had been
brought to a standstill, the trade of the Kingdom was dislocated,
London was threatened with semistarvation, the prices of food had
already risen, thousands of troops with ball cartridges were holding
strategical points, and only by the active intervention of the Govern
ment, which appointed a royal commission to inquire into their
grievances, were the men induced to return to work.
OPINIONS OF EMPLOYERS CONCERNING CONCILIATION AND ARBI
TRATION.

In view of the facts thus related it would be easy enough to say
that the conciliation act has proved a failure, that arbitration and
conciliation schemes are unworkable, and that both employers and
men prefer the rude, stern methods of force—the lockout and the
strike—rather than the more refined and civilized methods of legal
adjustment, the substitution of law for anarchy, of concession and
mutual tolerance for passion; yet any such sweeping statement would
be wide of the truth, certainly so far as those employers are con
cerned who have been consulted in the course of this inquiry; and
they are the recognized leaders in their several branches of trade
and represent the great manufacturing interests of Great Britain.
Most employers make a very broad distinction between conciliation
and arbitration, and especially between voluntary conciliation
schemes, which are part of the machinery of practically every indus
1Report to the Board of Trade upon Matters connected with the Establishment and
Working of Railway Conciliation Boards, set up in accordance with the Agreement of the
6th November, 1907, p. 3. London, 1909.
2 Railway Conciliation Scheme, Cd. 5332, p. 3.

166

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

try in the United Kingdom, and the “ interference 55 of the state in
arbitrating disputes when the state assumes no responsibility for
enforcing its award. The reasons why voluntary conciliation is ap
proved—and almost without exception employers favor it—and state
arbitration is condemned are set forth more in detail in subsequent
pages; here it is only necessary to say that a joint committee com
posed of employers and employees have not only a better understand
ing of conditions, but both sides usually, for their own interests, live
up to an agreement, while in a state arbitration the arbitrator may
have no practical knowledge of trade or business, and the greatest
weakness, from the standpoint of capital, in that the state can recom
mend but it does not enforce obedience.
Despite the criticisms of state interference in labor disputes and
the admitted imperfections of the act of 1896, it is made manifest
that not only are employers not opposed in many instances to the
settlement of labor disputes under legal sanction, but they are sensible
that heretofore—that is, prior to the great strike of 1911—the act
has been of great value in keeping the peace. Even many of the
very employers who were affected by that strike expressed them
selves as still believing in arbitration, provided it were not another
weapon to make the workman more powerful when he made demands
which the employer was compelled to resist. Most employers admit
that the conciliation act has been useful and has accomplished much
good, but they feel that it must be radically amended in order to
serve properly its purpose—that is, to create the machinery for pre
venting strikes or a stoppage of work or to adjust speedily and effi
caciously a dispute which is already in progress.
Whenever an attempt is made to ascertain the sentiments of a class
in regard to a particular subject there is always the danger that the
opinions of a few men are to be accepted as the opinions of the whole
body. An investigator, no matter how conscientious and painstaking
his work, can not personally interview' every employer; the best he can
do is to take certain men, prominent in their various industries, and
assume, after inquiry, that they are fairly representative of their
class. Yet, even so, allowance must be made for the personal equa
tion—for individual idiosyncrasies, for temperament, for the point
of view. There is a solidarity of capital as there is a solidarity of
labor, and, broadly speaking, the interests of capital are common—
especially when they are arrayed against labor—but just as there
are constantly internecine differences in the ranks of labor, so there
are disagreements among employers respecting their treatment of
their men. It is well that this should be remembered.
Thus one of the largest employers of labor in Sheffield did not
hesitate roundly to condemn his fellow^ employers, especially the
directors and managers of the railway companies affected by the
recent strike, for their refusal to recognize the trades-unions or to

EMPLOYERS* ATTITUDE TOWARD CONCILIATION— GREAT BRITAIN. 1 6 7

deal with their members through their accredited representatives.
Said this employer:
It is taking a gross and unfair advantage of the inen. The em
ployer is of superior intelligence to the average workman; the em
ployer can obtain the advice of lawyers and technical experts. The
men know how badly handicapped they are, but they have confidence
in their leaders, who are men of ability, and they feel that their
interests are safe in their hands. Yet, while the masters can fully
protect themselves, the men must suffer because they lack the skill
properly to present their case, which is not fair play.
I have no prejudice for or against the union. I have always em
ployed both union and nonunion men, and I should no more discharge
a man because he belonged to a union than I should refuse to employ
a man because he was not a member of a union; but I think it is often
an advantage to the employer to be able to deal with one or two men
as the representatives of a trade rather than to have to bargain with
each man separately. Employers, of course, are often shortsighted
and selfish. They believe that the men are only strong because of
the strength of the union, and that if they can break down the union
they have nothing further to fear from the men. One thing, how
ever, we can be sure of, and that is that the union, in some form or
other, will be part of our industrial system; the association of work
men for the betterment of their conditions or to resist oppression or
to remedy grievances can not be prevented, nor is it desirable, in my
opinion, that it should be. It is perhaps a serious question whether
the law should not take cognizance of the union to the extent of re
quiring its recognition by an employer in the event of a dispute, but
the question raised is such a large one that it would not be wise to
make any offhand suggestions.
It has been said that while employers are generally in favor of
some scheme of legal conciliation and arbitration, the existing act is
regarded as insufficient and needing amendment. The action of
Parliament will doubtless be influenced by the report of the royal
commission appointed to investigate the working of the railway con
ciliation and arbitration scheme of 1907, but in the meantime it is
interesting to give the views of some employers.
OPINION OF A PROMINENT COTTON SPINNER.

A man very prominent in cotton spinning, whose importance has
been recognized by a peerage, believes that the grave defect of the
present law is its failure to make any distinction between a dispute
that affects only the parties engaged and that in which the general
public or other workmen are affected. “ Let me make this clear,” this
man explained. “ Suppose there are five men in charge of pumping
machinery to supply air to a hundred men working in a mine. Those
five men have a dispute with their employer—a dispute in which the
hundred men working below are not in the least concerned—and
threaten to stop work. If they stop work, the men below must also
stop, for they can not live without air being pumped down to them.

168

BULLETIN OP THE BUREAU OP LABOR.

In a larger degree the same injury is done when there is a dispute
between railway servants and a railway company. A grievance of a
small number of men may prevent other men working and cause the
general public very great inconvenience and much loss.
“ In such a case the present law is powerless. It might be well
enough not to disturb the permissive features of the law when the
dispute is between a private employer and a particular class of work
men, for they alone are affected; but when the public is unwittingly
drawn in and is forced to take sides against its inclination, then the
law should be mandatory, and both parties should be compelled to
submit the dispute to the adjudication of the Board of Trade or some
other competent tribunal.”
OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE LONDON LABOR CONCILIATION AND
ARBITRATION BOARD.

Sir Samuel Boulton, a large employer of labor, from his experience
of more than 20 years as chairman of the London labor conciliation
and arbitration board, believes in the principle of voluntary concilia
tion but not in state arbitration. These voluntary boards, composed
of employers and men engaged in a single trade—“ bargaining boards,”
he terms them—he regards as very useful, as they enable the men
and their employers to come together, to talk over their affairs, and
to reach a bargain; but when it is necessary to employ an outside
agency, then he believes the method of the London labor board is the
only one that will produce successful results.
This board grew out of the great dock strike of 1889. In view
of the injury and loss which that strike entailed both on employers
and employed, the London Chamber of Commerce appointed a com
mittee to inquire whether some means could not be devised by which
future disturbances could be prevented. The following is an extract
from a statement issued by the chamber at that time:
It is advisable that the intentions of the chamber relative to the
settlement of future labor disputes should be made public, and that
the cooperation of employers of labor, and of trade-unions and other
representative bodies of the working classes should be earnestly
solicited. It is inevitable that from time to time readjustment of
the rates of labor should take place in sympathy with the fluctuating
conditions of commerce and manufactures, and the London Chamber
of Commerce fully recognizes the moral as well as the legal right of
both employers and employed to combine for the purpose of pro
tecting their respective interests. But the chamber, in the interests
of both classes, is most anxiously desirous that such adjustments
should be brought about by amicable methods, and without the
wasteful and calamitous occurrence of strikes and lockouts, which in
the case of the port of London have been proved by sad experience
to cause a diminution in the volume of trade, upon the continuance
and increase of which the toiling masses of this metropolis depend for
their daily bread.

EMPLOYERS9 ATTITUDE TOWARD CONCILIATION----GREAT BRITAIN. 1 6 9

The board is composed of 12 members representing employers
who are elected annually by the council of the London Chamber of
Commerce, and of 12 representatives of labor annually elected by the
delegates of the trade-unions of London, all the London trade-unions
being annually invited to elect these delegates.1 An equality of voting
power to the members of the board is provided for. The methods
of the board consist, firstly, on hearing of any labor dispute within
the metropolitan district, of an offer of its services to both disputants,
and of an invitation to a friendly conference on neutral ground;
that is, in the rooms of the chamber of commerce. If the meeting
takes place neither party is committed or compromised thereby to
any further course, except with their own consent; but an endeavor
is made by members of the board to induce the disputants, by friendly
discussion, to arrive at an amicable agreement. In many if not in
most cases this procedure by conciliation has proved to be successful
in arriving at a settlement. Where, however, conciliation by the
above method has not succeeded, a recourse to arbitration under the
auspices of the board is recommended. When requested, the board
proceeds to appoint arbitrators, who, without delay, give a full hear
ing to both parties in the presence of each other, and after due con
sideration issue their award. In the appointment of arbitrators
the board is not bound to confine its nomination to members of its
own body; but in this direction it has, after careful experiment, made
a new departure which has proved eminently successful. This con
sists in naming a panel of arbitrators, either two or some other even
number, one half of whom are employers and the other half work
men, but none of whom are concerned in the dispute under adjudica
tion. Thus constituted, the arbitrators are practically acquainted
from both sides of the question with the prevailing conditions of
labor in the port of London. When this idea was first mooted, it
was met in many quarters with something like derision. It was
said that, as a matter of course, the workmen on the panel would all
vote one way and the employers the other, and that a deadlock would
thus at once ensue, and that in such a case the two orders, having an
equality of votes, would never agree as to the choice of an umpire.
But the plan has worked surprisingly well. In every instance when
arbitrators have been appointed, drawn equally from both sides,
their decisions have been unanimous; and in the 21 years the board
has been in existence there has been no instance of its award not
having been carried out.
Sir Samuel says he has been impressed by the spirit of thorough
impartiality with which these mixed panels—the workmen equally
with the masters—have approached and dealt with the questions
1 For rules see Appendix III, p. 143.
31326°—Bull. 98—12---- 12

170

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

submitted to their arbitration. Since the formation of the board
there has never been an instance where the award arrived at under
arbitration, or the agreement entered into under the auspices of the
board by its methods of conciliation, has not been accepted and
loyally carried out by both parties to the dispute. After a first ex
perience of its methods, both employers and employed in various
industries continue from time to time to bring their difficulties before
the board for adjustment.
In the opinion of Sir Samuel Boulton, one of the reasons to ex
plain the success of the London labor board is that it confines itself
entirely to industrial disputes in the metropolitan area of London,
and that local men, familiar with trade and other conditions, are
much better qualified to deal with such matters than outsiders. For
this reason he advocates the formation of such boards in Glasgow,
Liverpool, Manchester, and all the other great industrial centers, and
he believes the results will be beneficial.
The results as given by Sir Samuel are impressive, yet there is a
feeling among many who are not unfriendly to the board, who are,
in fact, in full sympathy with it, that it has not yet proved its efficacy
in cases of really fundamental disagreement. It is pointed out that
during the 21 years in which the board has been in existence it has
settled only comparatively minor disputes, but none of the first
magnitude. Could a mixed panel of employers and workmen, it is
asked, reach a unanimous decision if the question at issue involved
what either side regarded as a vital principle, say, a demand on the
part of the men for the employment of only union labor and a firm
determination on the part of the employers not to assent to the de
mand ? It is generally conceded that in such a case the scheme would
probably break down. This does not, however, imply that the board
is not doing an important and valuable work. It is admitted that
the peaceful settlement of a trivial dispute has often prevented a
more serious one. Sir Samuel Boulton says that the difference be
tween his board and the functions exercised by the Board of Trade
is, that whereas his board is preventive, the Board of Trade is cura
tive, and it is in keeping with the principle of modern medicine to
preserve health rather than to seek to restore it. The good done by
an agency that can save a breach of the industrial peace is fully
recognized, but if men are determined to break the peace, no matter*
what the cost, and the agent of peace can use only moral suasion,
what hope is there that the peace will not be broken?
There is very substantial agreement among employers not only
that the London board has done much good, but that all the voluntary
conciliation boards have tended to bring about better relations be
tween employers and labor and to eliminate friction. The bringing
together of masters and men is educative, perhaps no less to the

EMPLOYEES9 ATTITUDE TOWABD CONCILIATION----GEEAT BKITAIN. 1 7 1

masters than to the men; it gives both sides a better appreciation of
the other and makes them have a more intimate understanding of
the difficulties both have to contend with.
OPINION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE LONDON MASTER BUILDERS’
ASSOCIATION.

Before masters and men met and endeavored to adjust their differ
ences by conciliation Mr. Thomas Costigan, the secretary of the
London Master Builders’ Association, explained they were like two
cats at the end of a fence. There was very little room in common
between them and, perhaps, even less sympathy. Conciliation has un
doubtedly brought them closer together, for it has enabled differ
ences to be discussed calmly, grievances to be heard, explanations to
be made. The Master Builders’ Association has often spent in con
ciliation proceedings a great many pounds where the sum involved
was only a few pence, but the expenditure has been considered wise,
as showing the men that the masters had no desire to take any unfair
advantage of them and that if they had any real grievance it would
be corrected on the ascertainment of the facts. This policy has
undoubtedly improved relations.
Mr. Costigan believes that whenever there is a dispute or a differ
ence existing between masters and men an attempt should be made
to settle it with the least possible delay. It has been the practice of
his association to proceed as expeditiously as circumstances will per
mit. When a dispute arises it is taken up within a few days, usually
not more than a week being permitted to lapse, and within a very
short time thereafter it is possible either to reach an amicable agree
ment or to demonstrate that such a result is impossible.1 The con
ciliation scheme of the association being simple, no time is lost in
preliminaries, nor is any expense to the men involved. The relations
between employers and employees in the London building trades have
been fairly harmonious for some time, and, in the opinion of the em
ployers, much of this harmony may be attributed to the ease and
speediness with which the machinery of conciliation may be set in
motion, and to its cheapness.
This matter of expedition is one the importance of which can not
be overestimated. One of the grievances of the railway men, which
was one of the causes assigned for the strike and undoubtedly had
much to do with creating discontent on the part of the men, was the
long time that elapsed before a dispute came to arbitration and the
heavy expense the proceedings involved. One of the labor witnesses
testifying before the royal commission said that cases had dragged*
*The constitution of the conciliation board of the London building trades provides that
in the event of a deadlock application is to be made to the Board of Trade for the ap
pointment of a conciliator with the powers of an arbitrator. Second Report on Rules
of Voluntary Conciliation and Arbitration Boards and Joint Committees (1910), p. 2.

172

BULLETIN OF THE BUBEAU OF LABOR.

along for 18 months and that they had cost his union £30,000
($115,995). Assuming the correctness of this statement, it is obvious
that a method so extremely cumbersome and costly was bound to
prove unsatisfactory and that it was necessary to devise a less com
plicated and cheaper way of bringing disputes to a final adjudication.
It is important to emphasize this element of time and cost so that
the mistakes made in England may be avoided in the United States.
Any scheme adopted, whether voluntary or as a legal enactment,
should be as simple and brief as it is possible to make it without
risking ambiguity of language or the clear intent of the purpose
sought to be accomplished. It should be so devised that on applica
tion of either side the machinery can at once be placed in motion—
for delays are dangerous and their evil effect is cumulative—and the
proceedings should be conducted with the minimum of expense.
In common with most employers, builders and contractors believe
in voluntary conciliation arrangements, but are opposed to state
interference in labor disputes. It is sufficient to state that fact now.
Later it will be explained why there is this opposition on the part
of employers generally to statutory arbitration.
But here again comes in the question that has already been raised,
and that is, How effective can any voluntary scheme be that can be
broken at the will of either side?
A voluntary scheme, as its name implies, rests solely upon the good
faith and the loyalty of the parties to the contract. It is a contract
in the broad social sense, but it is not a contract in the legal sense,
the provisions of which are enforceable at law or for which there
is a legal remedy for breach of its provisions. In some of these
schemes there is a stipulation providing for money damages in case
either side violates the terms of the agreement or refuses to abide by
the award of an arbitrator or umpire; but these are exceptions, and
the writer believes he is correct in saying that the great majority of
workmen are opposed to any such provision being included in the
agreement. The observance of its terms, therefore, is solely depend
ent upon the good faith with which the parties to it respect their
obligations and the spirit that animates them.
Until a sociological experiment has stood the trial of many years
and has been subjected to every test of varying conditions, the cautious
investigator will be extremely reluctant to pronounce it either a suc
cess or a failure, and even then he will hesitate before he dogmatizes.
Subject to these restrictions, it is safe to say that every effort that has
been made in recent years to substitute conciliation and arbitration
for violence or force has been of distinct advantage to society as a
whole, and especially to that portion of society immediately con
cerned—the workmen and their employers—and the assertion is made

EMPLOYEES* ATTITUDE TOWARD CONCILIATION----GREAT BRITAIN. 1 7 3

on the evidence supplied both by men and employers. The benevolent
idea of substituting law for anarchy has not accomplished as much
as its well-wishers hoped and expected; perhaps, because it is natural
to think that the latest experiment is the solution that long has been
searched for; partly because in our haste for social perfection we are
apt to forget that progress is slow and painful.
Yet it can not be doubted that progress has been made, and there
is almost unanimous agreement to this effect. Men who are opposed
to the unions, men who are not unfriendly to them, men who think
that the sole function of the state is to keep the ring and see that no
foul blows are struck—that a contest between capital and labor must
be settled like a war between nations, by skill and strength—in a
word, among the representatives of capital where there are as many
opinions as there are men, there is practically no disagreement as to
the benefits that have been derived from the free conference of mas
ters and men when questions arise that might lead to a lockout on the
one side or a strike on the other unless the difference was adjusted by
conciliation and concession. It is the trivial dispute that affects only
a few men at first and ends by involving an entire trade. It is the
spark that a child’s foot can stamp out, which, unchecked, destroys
half a city.
OPINION OF A PROMINENT IRONMASTER.

“ But the men may refuse to abide by the award.” That was the
question put to Sir Hugh Bell, Bart., one of the great ironmasters of
the north of England, who has on his pay rolls the names of 6,000
men* “ True,” he replied, “ and I regret it; I am disappointed when
that happens, but I am not disheartened. There is only one remedy,
and that is infinite patience; to make the men see what is fair and
just and to make them understand that their demands can not be com
plied with, because they are impossible. Meetings of joint committees
frequently seem like a waste of time, and as if the time given to talk
could often be devoted to better things, and yet it is not time wasted.
These meetings are in a sense educative to both sides. The men get
to understand things better; we, perhaps, learn some things; both
sides gain.”
Although he is on the Board of Trade employers’ panel as an arbi
trator or umpire, Sir Hugh Bell has had practically no experience
with the act of 1896, as for 40 years the ironmasters of the north of
England have had their own conciliation schemes in some form or
another. So far as the act of 1896 is concerned, Sir Hugh Bell re
gards it as a dead letter. He doubts if it will be repealed; he thinks
it not unlikely that it will be amended, but he does not believe it is
of very great consequence what happens.

174

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.
EMPLOYERS’ ASSOCIATIONS FOR DEFENSIVE PURPOSES.

One.of the results of the present embittered relations between
capital and labor—which does not hold out hope of a softening of
those relations—is a tendency among employers to form associations
to counteract the unions. Corporations and firms carrying on a manu
facturing business on the Thames and its tributaries have formed
an incorporated company known as the London Waterside Manu
facturers’ Association, the purpose of which, as set forth in the
articles of agreement, is to promote the mutual interests of the
members, “ to afford the members of the association facilities for
mutual cooperation in all matters affecting their interests as London
Waterside Manufacturers,” and “ to indemnify any member of the
association in respect of any action taken or to be taken, or liability
incurred or to be incurred by him in any case in which the council
of the association may consider it conducive to the mutual interests
of the members of the association as London Waterside Manufac
turers so to do.”
Here it will be seen is provided the means by which the associa
tion, representing in the aggregate employers giving work to many
thousands of men, whose capital runs into millions of dollars and
whose interests are world-wide, can give moral and financial sup
port to one of its members in case of a labor dispute. One of the
men who organized the association (it was incorporated March 14,
1905) and has always been prominent in its affairs, said that the
association had worked so well that the principle would undoubtedly
be extended to embrace other manufacturers, and that the power would
be given to employers to fight labor with its own weapon. Labor,
said this man, openly boasted that the sympathetic or general strike
would always bring the masters to terms, and that if necessary to
■ win, half the trade of the Kingdom would be dislocated. Employers
could now retaliate. If there was a strike in a factory members of
the association would be able to say that unless the men returned to
work or consented to an arbitration every member of the association
would close down and several thousand men would be thrown out of
work; not that the masters had any grievances against their men, but
because it was necessary for capital to stand together to resist united
labor when it made unjust demands.
This attitude of organized hostility, of course, is not consistent
with any belief in the efficacy of conciliatory methods, but outside of
this particular association such an attitude does not seem common.
Certain employers undoubtedly do object to boards of conciliation and
arbitration on the ground that it is difficult to form and operate such
boards without increasing the power of the unions; that in their
opinion the unions are so unreasonable, so arbitrary, and so irrespon

EMPLOYEES, ATTITUDE TOWAKD CONCILIATION----GEEAT BRITAIN. 1 7 5

sible that they constitute a serious menace to the general welfare;
and that therefore every measure which adds, directly or indirectly,
to their strength is to be sedulously avoided. More commonly, how
ever, the employers seem to feel that the unions have come to stay,
and that, apart from the convenience of collective agreements, the
existence of these large and powerful organizations renders it abso
lutely necessary in the interests of the public peace to provide effec
tive machinery for the consideration and settlement of trade or
industrial disputes.
ATTITUDE OE EMPLOYERS TOWARD ARBITRATION.

It has been said that employers, as a rule, are strongly opposed
to what they term*44interference ” of the Board of Trade and the sub
mission of a labor dispute to an 44 outsider ”—that is, a man who has
no practical knowledge of the trade; and they give several reasons
why they believe this practice to be objectionable. The following
statement made by a large employer of labor embodies views which
are fairly representative of those held by employers as a class. This
employer said:
In the first place, I think I and my men know more about our
affairs than can any man who is not familiar with them either as a
worker or an employer. There is in every trade what may be called
44the common law ” of the trade; there are certain customs, traditions,
and regulations on which we fall back just as the lawyer does on the
common law. There are things done in every trade, lines drawn be
tween different classes of workmen, and different stages in the process
of manufacture that would seem quite meaningless to anyone not
familiar with the trade, but which to us have a reason.
Now, one of the great objections to referring a dispute to an out
sider is that usually a lawyer or a judge is selected as an arbitrator
or an umpire, prooably because it is assumed that his training ad
mirably qualifies him for the service, while as a matter of fact, with
all due respect to several eminent lawyers who have arbitrated labor
disputes, they are quite unfitted for the duty imposed upon them.1
A labor arbitration, except in rare instances, is not a civil contract
to be enforced or a breach of the peace to be punished, it is not an
appeal either to civil or criminal law; but it is an attempt, in the
first place, to establish a modus vivendi, and then to make a treaty
of peace so as to prevent any resort to force in the future. To do
this it is necessary that the conditions governing the trade, the terms
of employment, and all other circumstances shall be known. The
lawyer will approach the question too much as a lawyer, and deal
1 It is proper to note here that while the great majority of employers are undoubtedly
opposed to lawyers or judges as arbitrators, Lord Claud Hamilton, for 39 years a mem
ber of the directory of the Great Eastern Railway, and for the past 18 years chairman of
its board, who is also a member of Parliament, testifying before the royal commission
said : “An arbitrator should be a man accustomed to exercise judicial functions—a judge
of the high court or some man occupying a somewhat analogous position. I do not
think the railway companies would be satisfied to accept the decision of a man of lower
position and less experience than a person coming within that category.”— Minutes of
Evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed to investigate and report on the
workings of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme of 1907. London, 1911,
q. 10084.

176

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

with it as a matter of law, which it is not, rather than as one of
expediency. An employer will pay a shilling a day more in wages
or reduce the working hours and not proportionately diminish the
pay if he considers it expedient, but not otherwise. But the lawyer
or the judge, who has been trained to decide cases on their merits
and not to give consideration to expediency, is too apt to bring to
the arbitration the ironclad principles of the law and to ignore other
considerations of even greater weight. Both sides want a commonsense ruling rather than a legal ruling. The legal mind will seize
on some point that appears to be vital, and perhaps it would be vital
in a court of law, but it is only of minor consequence in an arbitral
court of labor.
Another objection to the reference to an outsider is that he is too
often governed by his sympathies. A case is presented to him of
men getting certain wages, and it seems hard to him that a man
should have to support a family on fewer shillings a week than the
arbitrator pays for a pair of boots. As a theoretic proposition that
may be quite true, and we may all agree that it would be better if the
men got more money, and a 10 per cent increase does not seem to be
very much; but it may be the difference between the employer mak
ing a small profit on his investment or doing business without mak
ing any profit at all. The employer knows this, and can not let his
sympathies overturn his judgment; the outsider, who does not know
the facts and can not be easily convinced and does not have to pay
the bill, can afford generously to indulge his sympathies at the ex
pense of the employer.
Still another objection—in some respects perhaps the most seri
ous—is the constant temptation of the arbitrator to settle the differ
ence by splitting the difference. The arbitrator, of course, wants to
bring about a settlement ; otherwise he has been a failure and he gets
no credit out of the proceedings. In the case of men asking an in
crease of wages they often make their demand excessively high be
cause they know this weakness of an arbitrator to 44split the differ
ence ; ” and an arbitrator really thinks he has been remarkably suc
cessful in effecting a 44compromise ” when he reduces the men’s de
mands 50 per cent, which is still 25 per cent more than they really
expected to get, and no alternative is left to the masters except to
abide by the award.
Asked if the evils of which he complained would not be removed
if instead of a lawyer or a judge a business man were appointed as
the arbitrator or umpire, he replied:
No; that would not help matters. Suppose I have a dispute with
my men. To appoint as arbitrator one of my associates would be to
invite the criticism that of course the arbitration would go against
the men, as an employer would naturally decide in favor of a fellow
employer. To take an employer engaged in another line of business
would, of course, be better than to select a lawyer, but it would still
be far from satisfactory. He would know a great deal more about
the way in which business is carried on than the lawyer, but he would
not know very much more about that particular business. I know
how the things I sell are made and why certain men are in charge of

EMPLOYERS9 ATTITUDE TOWARD CONCILIATION----GREAT BRITAIN. 1 7 7

certain machines, and all the rest of it, but I know very little, prac
tically nothing, about other lines of manufacturing.
There is only one solution, and that is to let masters and men settle
their disputes among themselves without any official outside inter
ference. If they can’t agree, if they are unable to arrange their own
conciliation or arbitration machinery, then they ought to be allowed
to disagree until they come to their senses. Some inconveniences
might be caused, but in the end a settlement would be reached, and itwould be far more satisfactory to both parties and more lasting than
decisions by official arbitrators.
A further objection to the “ interference ” of the Board of Trade
is, some employers say, that it is apt to be political, so that the
Board of Trade is more concerned in bringing about a settlement for
the political advantage that is to be gained than it is to consider
whether the settlement meets the issues involved and therefore will
make for lasting peace.
No one who has talked to employers, whatever their political bias,
can doubt that again and again the political factor has multiplied the
difficulties of the officials.1
On the other hand, it is proper to call attention to the expressions
of some employers. They say that, while it is true that the presi
dent of the Board of Trade is a party man and nominally sets the
board’s machinery in motion, as a matter of fact, the real work is
done by his subordinates, and they, like all English Government
officials below the rank of minister, are permanent officials, who cease
to be party men when they enter the Government service, and who
can afford to be uninfluenced by political considerations because
their tenure of office is not affected by party changes, their position
being secure, except for misconduct, until they reach the retiring or
pensionable age.
At the present time a deadlock appears to have been reached and
every scheme for the prevention of labor disputes has broken down,
unless both sides are agreed there shall be no dispute, which sounds
like a contradiction and renders unnecessary legal or other arrange
ments. The men are no more firmly opposed to “ compulsory arbi
tration ”—a misnomer, as the very essence of arbitration is a volun
tary and not a forcible submission of a difference to a disinterested
person whose only power to enforce his award is the pledge of both
parties to abide by the decision—than the employers are to any ar
rangement that is not self-executory or does not bind both parties
equally. Until such an arrangement is put into effect industrial
peace hangs on a hair, employers will tell you, and yet it is impossi
ble in the present state of social and political opinion to devise the
remedy. “ In theory the idea of making arbitration compulsory,”
says one writer,1 “ and depriving employers and employees of the
right either to lock out or to strike is attractive to autocratic minds.

1 London Morning Post, Sept. 20, 1911.

178

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

In practice such a proposal must be unhesitatingly rejected, in the
first place, because neither side desires or will submit to such a change
in the law; in the second place, because the enforcement of any such
law upon large bodies of disgruntled workmen is absolutely imprac
ticable. To draw any analogy between the tiny disturbances of a
new country such as New Zealand and the Titanic upheavals among
the crowded millions of Britain’s industrial workers is absurd. No
government would have the courage to enforce obedience to arbitra
tion even to the extent of imprisoning leaders.” "
CONCLUSION.

Despite the many cross currents that the writer has encountered
in the course of the present investigation and the diverse opinions
expressed, on two questions there is substantial unanimity. They
are:
First, that schemes of conciliation and arbitration voluntarily en
tered into between employers and men by which an attempt is made
to arrange disputes or to settle differences existing in their trades
are productive of good, tend to ameliorate relations, and to lessen
the danger of strikes and lockouts. The sentiment in favor of con
ciliation schemes of a voluntary character—and emphasis must be
laid on the fact that they are voluntary—is undoubtedly growing,
and it is safe to say that such schemes in the future will play a still
larger part in the relations between employers and their men.
Second, schemes of conciliation or arbitration under state sanc
tion are not regarded with favor by employers unless the state shall
assume the responsibility of enforcing its verdict. To do this the
law must be so amended as to make any breach of the provisions of
the award similar to any other violation of law that is punishable
by fine or imprisonment; but there is practical agreement that so
ciety is not yet prepared to sanction what in the present state of
public opinion is regarded as legislation of such an extremely radical
character. The consequence is that for the present, at least, state
arbitration is viewed with disfavor and as defeating the very purpose
for which it was designed.

ATTITUDE OF LABOR TOWARD CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION
IN GREAT BRITAIN.
BY ARTHUR E. HOLDER.

INTRODUCTION.

The use of joint committees of employers and employees, concili
ation boards, arbitration boards, etc., is not a new or untried method
of reaching a working agreement or of avoiding strikes or lockouts
in the principal industries of Great Britain.
For years previous to the enactment by Parliament of the “ Con
ciliation Act” of 1896, general, district, and local conciliation or
wage boards had been instituted by the cooperation of employers
and employees. The following list, for instance, contains a few from
among the earliest of such boards with the years they were estab
lished :
1868.
1872.
1872.
1872.
1873.
1873.
1875.
1875.
1879.
1882.
1885.
1890.

Nottingham Lace Trade Board of Conciliation.
Durham Coal Owners and Miners’ Association.
Cleveland Iron Masters and Blast Furnace Men’s Association.
Midland Iron and Steel Wage Board.
Northumberland Coal Owners and Miners’ Association.
Cleveland Mine Owners and Miners’ Board (iron).
Leicester Boot and Shoe Trade Board of Conciliation.
South Wales Colliery Workmen’s Sliding Scale Committee.
Cumberland Coal Owners and Miners’ Association.
Edinburgh Plasterers’ Conciliation Board.
Wear Shipbuilding Trade Conciliation Board.
Bristol Building Trades’ Conciliation Board.

The beginning of the movement is universally credited to the work
done by Mr. Mundella, in or about 1860, in the hosiery trade. His
unbounded confidence in the principles of conciliation and voluntary
arbitration led to their adoption as a means of settling disputes in
this trade, an example soon followed by the building trades of North
ampton, Mr. Kettle being the leader here. From time to time, as
the distress and disorganization inflicted by periodical strikes and
lockouts became apparent, the system of voluntary conciliation was
adopted in other industries.
It was not, however, until after the great dockers’ strikes in London
and other seaports in 1889 and 1890, when many thousands of un
skilled and semiskilled men stopped work in order to obtain an
increase of wages, and when trade and commerce were thoroughly
dislocated, that any serious consideration was given by public men

179

180

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

to the subject of conciliation as a means of avoiding trade disputes.
It is true that Parliament had previously enacted legislation of a
commendatory character, but it lacked provision for the machinery,
at once adaptable, suggestive, and voluntary, pr6vided by*the terms
of the act of 1896.
ATTITUDE OF GENERAL FEDERATION OF TRADE-UNIONS.

The trade-unions of England are and have been since their earliest
inception committed to the doctrine of “Conciliation, mediation,”
etc. The General Federation of Trade-Unions, which is a national
federation, as its name implies, has affiliated with it over 135 of the
strongest organizations that contain the most highly skilled artisans.
That large central federation has committed itself to this plank in its
platform:
To promote industrial peace, and by all amicable means, such as
conciliation, mediation, references, or by the establishment of per
manent boards, to prevent strikes or lockouts between employers and
workmen, or disputes between trades or organizations. Where dif
ferences do occur, to assist in their settlement by just and equitable
methods.1
“ This declaration,” said Mr. W. A. Appleton, secretary of the fed
eration, “ is a reflex of what each of the constituent organizations
within the federation is committed to, and what each in its own
particular field and industry has faithfully tried to establish.” '
This principle is also incorporated for application in the internal
government of the organizations composing the federation, and has
proved of inestimable value in the peaceful settlement of so-called
“ jurisdiction disputes ” or lines of “ demarcation.”
Rule 9 provides the following mode of settling such internal dis
putes:
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIETIES.

1. In the event of any differences arising between any of the
societies in the federation on demarcation of work, interchange of
members, or on any question, no cessation of labor shall take place
by either or any party involved, and, unless amicably arranged, by
any means mutually agreed to, the differences must be referred to a
board of reference or arbitration, but in no case shall the general
secretary, executive, or other officials of the federation entertain any
complaint or intervene in any way unless assurance is given by the
societies concerned that the complainant society has applied to the
other society, and efforts have been made to adjust the grievance.
REFEREES.

2. If possible, the parties affected shall agree on three disinterested
referees, failing this, each party to the dispute shall appoint one
arbitrator; the two arbitrators to appoint an umpire and, in the
1 Rules General Federation of Trade-Unions, 1910, p. 5.

ATTITUDE OF LABOR TOWARD CONCILIATION— GREAT BRITAIN. 1 8 1

event of the arbitrators failing to agree, his decision shall be final
and binding. The referees, arbitrators, or umpires, as the case may
be, shall not be selected from any trade who may come in conflict
with either of the parties to the difference.
POWERS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.

3. If a board of arbitration be not appointed within one month of
an application being made for a reference to arbitration, the manage
ment committee shall have power to appoint either arbitrators or
referees, as the case might be. The board, when formed, shall decide
as to place of meeting, method of procedure, etc.; each party to pay
half of the expenses unless otherwise ordered by the board.1
The secretary of the federation (Mr. Appleton) was requested to
state his opinions as an official of the federation and as a representa
tive of labor as to the value of the conciliation act of 1896. He very
kindly and clearly answered certain specific questions, as follows:
1. What was the attitude of labor in the early years of the act ?
Answer. The attitude of labor was favorable to the act when passed,
and in fact, labor organizations anticipated the act and had set up
national, district, and local conciliation boards many years before
the act was passed by Parliament. In the lace makers’ union (of
which Mr. Appleton was formerly the general secretary) the rules
provided as early as 1868 for a board “ to arbitrate on any question
that may be referred to it from time to time by the joint consent of
employer and workmen, and by conciliatory means to interpose its
influence to adjust any or all disputes that may arise.”
2. What has been the attitude of labor toward the act in recent
years?
Answer. Attitude still favorable; no change noticeable.
3. Has there been any difference in the attitude of labor as between
conciliation and arbitration?
Answer. Labor has always been willing to accept voluntary con
ciliation, and when that fails, to accept voluntary arbitration; but it
must be positively understood that no compulsion will ever be toler
ated by British trade-unionists, or accepted in statutory form to
interfere in trade disputes. British employers would oppose such a
proposition as vigorously as would the trade-unionists.
4. Has the conciliation act operated to prevent strikes and lock
outs ?
Answer. No; not directly; but the local and district boards set up
under the act have in some instances, and the administration of the
act has undoubtedly prevented the continuation of strikes and lock
outs and prevented their extension to other closely affiliated trades.
5. What, from the labor standpoint, have been the advantages of
conciliation and arbitration under the act ?
Answer. The main advantage has been to get both sides in the con
test together, thus enabling them to learn each other’s viewpoints,
each other’s personalities, and to open a fair opportunity to discuss
their points of difference in a business way and finally come to a
common and harmonious basis of agreement.
1Rules General Federation of Trade-Unions, pp. 20, 21.

182

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

C. Is there criticism of the methods ?
Answer. There has been no serious criticism of the methods.
7. Is there criticism of the cost of proceedings ?
Answer. There has been no serious criticism of the cost, except
from the railway employees, and in their cases the blame has been at
tributed to the railway managers. The general public has never
been known to complain of the cost, or at least there is no record of
such a complaint that has ever been called to my attention. The
British people appear to regard it very philosophically and consider
the administration of the act as a necessary public duty. They nat
urally expect that a vigorous, industrious, assertive, and ambitious
people who live by industry and commerce must naturally have dis
putes, and that to settle such disputes money must be spent.
8. Is there criticism of delays, or of bias in decisions ?
Answer. No complaint of delays on the part of the Government
officials who administer the national act. Railway employees complain
of interminable delays caused by railway officials under the railway
conciliation scheme of 1907. As to bias, speaking generally, no sug
gestion of personal bias has arisen. There are what may be called
temporary ebullitions at times, but they soon subside. 1 have met
with only one instance of definite personal bias, and that after a
regular notice of complaint had been filed, that finally terminated in
a reversal of the award so that an advantage to the workmen’s inter
est was secured.
9. Are there limitations as to the questions dealt with ?
Answer. There may be limitations, but usually the terms or points
of reference (subjects under dispute) to be considered are decided
independently; sometimes the two parties to the dispute agree upon
them; at other times they will agree upon them in the presence of
the chairman, umpire, or arbitrator.
Arbitrators usually make it a rule to insist upon a specific and
definite outline of points of disagreement to be considered or that
are matters of dispute.
10. Are there difficulties in regard to acceptance or enforcement of
awards or decisions ?
Answer. Sometimes difficulties do arise; especially when decisions
are not rendered with clearness, there is likely to be trouble over the
interpretation of some features of the award. If the workmen re
fused to accept an award, the press would make quite a to-do about it.
Such cases aie very rare, however. It must be remembered that the
old British sporting instinct and the accompanying temperament
helps a great deal in such cases. Men will naturally fuss and grum
ble a little when they lose, maybe swear about it a bit, but they will
end by u playing the game.”
11. Are there difficulties in the interpretation of agreements or
awards?
Answer. Difficulties do occasionally occur in the interpretation of
awards, but when such obstacles arise it is usual to continue work
(even though a stoppage had originally existed) and for both parties
to appeal to the boards or the arbitrators for a clearer definition of
the doubtful points; after such proceedings, matters go along serenely.
Again, it will be noted the matter of honor plays a most important
part in our industrial troubles.

ATTITUDE OF LABOR TOWARD CONCILIATION— GREAT BRITAIN. 1 8 3

12. What changes in the act or in procedure are regarded as de
sirable from the employee’s standpoint ?
Answer. Some individual workmen have occasionally remarked
that they think it would have been better if the act simply insisted
upon a meeting of the parties involved in a dispute without requiring
the intervention of officials to effect a decision.
13. How helpful has the act been in those industries where the
workmen are not organized in trade-unions ?
Answer. Our experience has shown that the full benefits of the act,
or, for that matter, the beneficent effects of the principles of concilia
tion and voluntary arbitration can be secured only when and where
the workmen are organized on definite and orderly lines. Without
permanent and substantial organization the workmen do not and
can not command respect. They are wholly inefficient in the formu
lation of grievances; they rarely have trained men able to voice their
complaints in an orderly, comprehensive manner; they are deficient
in the collection or presentation of comparative data, and, finally,
they are wholly lacking in that militant discipline which is devel
oped by the trade-unions that will observe and enforce the acceptance
of awards.
Organization among workmen frequently renders it unnecessary
to invoke the act. It has recently been said to me by the chairman of
a large and powerful employers’ federation, when referring to a
dispute that had arisen among men in a line of industry that had
only been organized a short time: “ Had I known that these men were
organized and affiliated to the General Federation of Trade Unions,
I should have conferred with the federation officials prior to the time
the men went out on strike; but I thought the men were unorganized
and had no resources, and that there was no one who could or would
assume responsibility or with whom I could intelligently carry on
negotiations.”
Many similar experiences have been encountered by myself and
other officers of the federation and the constituent organizations
affiliated to it.
It has been our experience that decent, fair-minded employers
prefer dealing directly with the authorized representatives of a tradeunion rather than allowing their industrial disputes to be submitted
to outside parties, regardless of the fact whether such outside parties
constitute district, local, or national conciliation boards.
This additional observation may be made with due respect to the
efficacy of the conciliation act, that its influence has been chiefly
invoked in cases where uprisings or revolts have occurred among
unorganized men, either because a sudden impulse led the men to seek
an immediate remedy for long-standing grievances or because an
employer or manager had imposed new and objectionable conditions
upon the workers. In either case there would be a disturbance of
former industrial relations, usually accompanied by an outburst of
passion and a stoppage of operations, sometimes a lockout, but as
frequently a strike. Under such circumstances the good offices of the
Board of Trade officials are invited through different mediums to
apply the principles of conciliatory adjustment under the act of 1896.
To this extent the act has been very serviceable and really con
stitutes a valuable asset to society in general; not infrequently it has

184

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

been the means by which many workmen in unskilled or semiskilled
occupations have more willingly lent their ears to the persuasions
of our organizers and in the course of time have naturally formed
compact and permanent organizations, eventually affiliating with the
General Federation of Trade Unions and to a greater or less extent
cooperating with it for the commonweal.
COMMENTS AND CRITICISMS OF INDIVIDUAL WORKERS AND
ORGANIZATIONS.

Summaries of the opinions and criticisms herein expressed by the
secretary of the General Federation of Trade Unions on the use
fulness of the application of the general principles of conciliation
and arbitration in the adjustment of labor disputes and the value of
the conciliation act of 1896 were submitted to the membership of
various labor organizations (before which the writer was courteously
granted brief hearings) in the boroughs of Lewisham, Deptford,
Greenwich, Blackwall, Poplar, and Woolwich in Greater London,
Bristol, Taunton, Cardiff, Coventry, Birmingham, Liverpool, and
Blackpool. Individual members of the rank and file were also inter
viewed in Foleshill, Rugby, Leicester, Warrington, Oldham, Man
chester, and elsewhere. These organizations and workmen repre
sented many highly skilled workers, such as building-trade me
chanics, metal workers in engineering establishments, textile workers,
miners and quarrymen, dockers, lightermen, street railway men, and
rolling-mill, sheet-steel, and tinplate workers, and others. The
opinions gained from them varied in some details, but generally
speaking they were unanimously in favor of conciliatory methods in
the adjustment of their disputes with the employers, and agreed per
fectly as to the efficacy of such methods.
Many of these men grew eloquent on the part they and their
organizations had taken in this direction, and a spirit of pride was
frequently exhibited when reference was made to the accomplish
ments of local and district boards of conciliation.
The great majority very emphatically favored direct negotiation
between their own duly accredited trade-union representatives and
employers or the authorized representatives of employers and em
ployers’ federations. In fact, this seemed to be the goal which many
organizations have attained and which the others are bending every
effort to reach.
Many apt expressions were used to demonstrate their preference
for direct negotiations and direct agreements, such as, “ It is a better
business method;” “ We feel safe when our own men are in the
office;” “ We are better satisfied when a settlement is reached;”
“ The 4gaffers ’ and we know our own jobs best;” “ We work with
more vim when it is all over and the master gets that proportionate
benefit of the outcome;” “ We don’t want outsiders to meddle with
our affairs; they don’t understand and can’t be made to understand

ATTITUDE OE LABOR TOWARD CONCILIATION— GREAT BRITAIN. 1 8 5

what we want, nor how we feel;” 44Too many conciliations end with
a compromise which looks like six of one and half a dozen of the
other;” “ If we are right we want to know it and get our claim, if
the company is right and can prove it we will own up;” 44Aye, lad!
A straight-out agreement with gaffer is the thing, our chaps then
stay in line and work harder;” 44It’s got to come to it anyway; sooner
the 4supe ’ finds that out, better all round;” 44Clean cut, straightfor
ward, cold-blooded business recognition of trade-unions is worth
more than volumes of conciliation schemes;” 44We like peace, we
want peace, well have peace if we are bound to fight for it.”
Some local and district trade-union officials pointed with pride to
the fact that their predecessors had fought so frequently and so
tenaciously with the employers in their industries that the latter
had been driven under the iron law of necessity to devise schemes
(a favorite term to describe boards of conciliation) to adjust their
troubles in order to avoid stoppages. Such enthusiasts were not
backward in adding with a tinge of self-consciousness, 44Our chaps
did that before the Government passed any acts,” and not a few very
bluntly interjected, 44Oh, what do the politicians know about our
affairs?” When such harsh critics were reminded that many if not
most of the representatives in the Board of Trade, who had the
responsibility of administering the conciliation act, were formerly
honored trade-union officials, it was sharply and promptly answered
in very blunt English style:
Certainly, when the Government saw our movement was grow
ing strong enough to be an industrial and political power, or a menace
to their self-interest, they took our men because they were properly
trained to deal with men of affairs. They wanted the best and got
them from us—and they are all right; they are doing good work,
but we are not tied to the Government because they appoint some of
our men to such public offices.
In a few instances men were met who did not know anything con
cerning the work accomplished under the conciliation act, and who
frankly acknowledged that they did not know such a measure had
ever been enacted, but such instances and such admissions were ex
tremely rare. This ignorance was found only among workmen who
might be described as occupying the two extremes, usually being
discovered either among those who belonged to old and successful
organizations which had long since reached the stage of direct
negotiations with employers, or among those who had been but
recently organized and had not as yet come into a conflict with their
employers.
GAS WORKERS AND GENERAL LABORERS.

The general secretary of the powerful Gas Workers and General
Laborers Union (Mr. J. K. Clynes), who resides in the busy textile
31326°—Bull. 98—12---- 13

186

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

center of Oldham, said that the good offices of the officials at the
Board of Trade who administer the working of the conciliation
act had never been engaged in behalf of the members of his organi
zation, and that he was not personally intimate with the operations of
the act. By association with men engaged in the steel trades, rolling
mills, and blast furnaces, he had learned it had been serviceable to
them.
In my opinion the act has operated successfully to prevent strikes
and lockouts in cases where employers and employees are highly
organized. In such cases they reasonably recognize each other’s
organizations and have a corresponding amount of respect for each
other’s power.
In our organization we work independently of the act. When and
where we can we make regular collective agreements with the em
ployers directly, conducting the negotiations through authorized rep
resentatives of both parties. If we fail in this, we refer our case to
the officials of the General Federation of Trade-Unions with which
our organization is affiliated and through which such difficulties are
amicably adjusted.
I am of the opinion that long terms of agreements are not con
ducive to the best interests of the men. One year is enough.
IRON-ORE MINERS.

The general secretary of the Cumberland Iron-Ore Miners and
Kindred Trades’ Association (Mr. T. Gavan Duffy) said:
We strongly believe in the general principles of conciliation and
in the use of conciliation boards in the settlement of industrial dis
putes. To be effective, however, such boards must be organized op
right lines.
.The conciliation act of 1896 has been useless to the men ipour occur
pation. Its machinery is loose and its operations perfunctory. It
has not prevented strikes or lockouts in our industry. We have asked
the Board of Trade people to come in, but beyond a stereotype ac
knowledgment of our letters we have heard nothing further from
them.
As we have seen nothing of the workings of the act, we are per
haps not competent to judge its defects. We certainly know nothing
of its virtues. We should not, however, favor any compulsory scheme
without carefully examining all the details.
BOILER MAKERS AND SHIPWRIGHTS.

The general secretary of the Boiler Makers and Iron and Steel
Shipbuilders (Mr. John Hill) and Mr. Alex. Wilkie, of the Asso
ciated Shipwrights, representatives for several years of these old
and prosperous trade-unions, both with headquarters at Newcastleupon-Tyne, were very positive as to the virtue of direct negotiations
with the employers and rather reluctant to talk about the conciliation
act other than to say:
Our opinion on the conciliation act of 1896 is, that so far as our
differences with the employers are concerned, this act has been a
dead letter. We are not interested in it or its amendments.

ATTITUDE OF LABOR TOWARD CONCILIATION----GREAT BRITAIN.

187

Our shipyard trade-unions negotiate agreements directly with the
Shipbuilding Employers’ Federation. These agreements provide
that “ The federation and the unions, recognizing that it is in the
best interests of both employers and workmen that arrangements
should be made whereby questions arising may be fully discussed and
settled without stoppages of work: Hereby agree as follows,” etc.
This agreement makes ample provision for local negotiations, pre
liminary conferences, grand conferences, demarcation disputes, etc.,
and for the appointment or selection of an independent referee to
whom questions of dispute may be submitted in the event any joint
committee fails to agree.
The last clause of this agreement provides that it shall continue
in force for three years, and shall thereafter be subject to six months’
notice in writing on either side. It is a most complete and elaborate
document. Seventeen trade-unions are signatories to it, viz:
United Society of Boiler Makers, Iron and Steel Shipbuilders.
Cooperative Smiths’ Society.
Associated Blacksmiths’ Society.
Combined Smiths of Great Britain and Ireland.
Sheet Iron Workers, Light Platers, and Ship Range Makers’ Society.
General Union of Braziers and Sheet Metal Workers.
Ship Constructive and Shipwrights’ Association.
Amalgamated Society of Drillers and Hole Cutters.
Amalgamated Society of. Carpenters and Joiners.
Associated Carpenters and Joiners’ Society.
General Union of Carpenters and Joiners.
Amalgamated Union of Cabinetmakers.
National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades’ Association.
Amalgamated Society of Wood Cutting Machinists.
Scottish Sawmill Operatives and Wood Cutting Machinists’ Society.
National Amalgamated Society of Operative House and Ship Painters and
Decorators.
Scottish Amalgamated Society of House and Ship Painters.

One hundred and fourteen shipbuilding concerns are connected
with the Shipbuilding Employers’ Federation, comprising the largest
in Great Britain. The last agreement was entered into March 9,
1909. A supplementary and subsidiary agreement was effected De
cember 8,1910. The full text of both are included in Appendix YI,
pp. 150.
AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS.

The general secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers
(Mr. Jenkin Jones) very frankly stated that neither he nor the
membership of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers looked upon
the conciliation act or its administration with much approval, so far
as its usefulness could or bad been applied in the adjustment or pre
vention of disputes in the engineering trades.
We have observed that the act has been helpful sometimes to men
who find that their conditions get steadily worse in an unorganized
state and who, after establishing a union or during the time they

188

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

are occupied in such an undertaking, get into a row with their em
ployers, finally terminating with a lockout or strike. Under such
circumstances, when every home remedy has failed, the act has been
applied, a compromise effected, and a new trade-union established.
The good offices of the president of the Board of Trade were ex
tended to some of the men of our trade in 1907 while engaged in a
test of strength on the northeast coast with the shipping interests.
On a referendum vote (which is the rule in the Amalgamated Society
of Engineers) it was twice rejected. That should demonstrate the
sentiment our men have toward the act. I have never heard one of
them say he was sorry for his negative vote then.
The Amalgamated Society of Engineers now contains 115,000
highly skilled mechanics, and when our books were audited, De
cember, 1910, we had a credit balance of $2,991,290. Our members
believe in peaceful settlement of industrial disputes, and our rules
provide for conciliatory methods of preventing them. Up to the
present, in the light of our experience, we have found these methods
eminently practicable and much preferable to governmental or any
other outside intervention. We believe in and insist upon 44direct
negotiation.” Our rule is as follows:
“ Executive council: The council may enter into conference with
the employers’ federation executive with a view to an amicable set
tlement of any dispute that may arise in any district of the society.
But on no account shall they take any case from the district in which
the dispute occurred to the central conference unless requested to do
so by the local district committee, and then only after all local efforts
have failed.
44The executive council^ or anyone acting on their behalf, shall not
be allowed to complete an agreement with any employer or em
ployers concerning wages, piecework prices^ or system of working
unless the terms of agreement are first submitted to the district or
districts affected. In all cases of disagreement between the district
or districts affected and the executive council the whole case shall
be submitted to and decided by the vote of the whole society, to
which both sides of the question may be put by each party
concerned.” 1
The chief virtue I see in the conciliation act is that it is purely
voluntary. The engineers are willing to put up a big political fight
to keep it so.
Conciliation is an inappropriate title; it should be renamed and
called voluntary intervention or intervention solicited. It is a mis
leading appellation to call such an act 44conciliation ” or 44arbitra
tion ” unless one of its cardinal features includes an honest examina
tion of the books of an employer and a scrutiny of the system of
bookkeeping. Arbitrators or conciliators or trade-union representa
tives too frequently have to take too much for granted from em
ployers and their representatives, who make bold, blanket, cut-andaried, stereotyped statements that44the business is not paying,” 44the
firm is losing money,” 44trade is leaving the country,” etc., but who,
when they are challenged to prove such assertions, promptly refuse.
They act as though such a straightforward business proposition is
offensive to them.
1 Rules Amalgamated Society of Engineers, p. 65, Rule XIV, sec. 14.

ATTITUDE OF LABOR TOWARD CONCILIATION— GREAT BRITAIN. 1 8 9

A former general secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engi
neers, but now advanced by them to be a member of Parliament
(Mr. George M. Barnes), expressed himself somewhat skeptically as
to the efficacy of the conciliation act in avoiding or permanently
settling labor troubles. He said:
My experience has been that the only solution in sight is to organize
strong militant unions and equip them with a strong treasury; to be
always prepared for a contest and to command respect by power;
might makes for right; peace can be compelled easier by determina
tion and a display of strength than by cajolery or so-called diplo
macy. The British trade-unions are growing stronger every year.
They are federating by industries, the modern and natural economic
method. They are destined to be ultimately successful and equal to
all emergencies.
In the Fifty-seventh Annual Eeport, for the year 1907, he sub
mitted as part of his report as general secretary the following, which
bears strongly on the important technicality of requiring accurate in
formation as to prices and profits from employers during periods in
which industrial conferences are in session:
For my part, I see no reason to alter the opinions I have often
expressed, which are that the shortest possible time limit for confer
ences and provision for full information being given to such con
ferences are the two practicable things the society should keep’
steadily in mind.
I believe that initiatory discretion of the employers in regard to
minor matters is a necessary condition of any terms of agreement.
Pending settlement, somebody must say what, under certain circum
stances, must be done, and it seems to me that that somebody must
necessarily be the employer. This means, of course; tying the hands
of the union, and what is needed is to make the period during which
this operates as short as possible. It should be here said in parenthe
sis that this does not apply to wages or hours, and that, in regard to
these, both sides are tied alike and both have been tied to their
advantage.
.
But the second point is most important. The employers, as a
matter of fact, have full information now in regard to our side.
They know all about wages and numbers out of work, they know as
much as we do about housing and means of living generally, but we
know practically nothing of their profits, very little about prices of
engineering products, and as little of prospects of trade. As a result
the employers have sometimes induced us to take the most gloomy
view or things—they may or may not have taken it themselves—
whereas subsequent events have not justified that view. The north
east coast affords an illustration of what I mean. In the year 1900
the men asked for an advance of wages, and after some months’ delay
we met the employers in central conference in June of that year.
The chairman of the Employers’ Federation said:
“ In the marine trade, which, personally, I have more knowledge
of than others, I have no hesitation in saying that it is undoubtedly
in a very rapid decline.”

190

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

Much more of a similar character was said, the record of which is
before me now as I write these lines, and as a result the northeast
coast men stayed their hands and practically withdrew their demand.
Yet, looking back now on events, it is clearly seen that the view put
to us by the employers was a biased view, induced no doubt, and
perhaps unconsciously, by a sense of self-interest. As a matter of
fact, during the very year in which we were led to believe that the
trade was in a rapid decline, the northeast coast output in shipping
was 19,000 tons more than the year before, and the output for the
year after showed a further increased output amounting to no less
than 74,000 tons.
From this it will be seen that there is much to be said in excuse for
the present resentment of the northeast coast men. Whatever may
be said as to their judgment in twice rejecting arbitration, and how
ever wrong they may be, in the present crisis, the employers hava
been to some extent responsible for it by past events. I submit there
fore that the men in conference should be supplied with information
as to prices, profits, and prospects, so that the conference as a whole
should have an opportunity of making up its mind on the full facts.
If there is objection to disclosing the positions of respective firms,
that could be met by arrangements for such disclosures being made
to accountants, or some such authority, and such authority reporting
to the conference as a whole. At all events it is clear that some
improvement will have to be made in that direction.1
STEAM ENGINE MAKERS’ SOCIETY.

The general secretary of the Steam Engine Makers’ Society (Mr.
William F. Dawtry) discussed the general principles of conciliation
and arbitration of industrial disputes.
The Steam Engine Makers’ Society is now in its eighty-seventh
year and contained 13,401 good-standing members at the close of the
books in 1910. The membership consists of fitters, turners, erectors,
pattern makers, millwrights, smiths, and draftsmen engaged in the
engineering trades. It had $444,990 in its treasury at that time, or an
equivalent of $33 per capita, reputed to be the highest of any known
trade organization. Its headquarters are at Manchester.
The Steam Engine Makers’ Society is not considered an aggressive
or militant union, nor is it so pronounced by its members. It was
organized in 1824 under a system of centralized management fr o m
which little or no departure has since been made.
Mr. Dawtry said:
Our methods of dealing with disputes in the trade are contained in
this rule:
“ Should any dispute respecting wages, hours of labor, or other
trade privileges occur in any workshop where members of this society
are employed the branch where such members are employed shall im
mediately make it known to the executive committee, who shall
advise and instruct them what course to pursue to avoid further eom1 Fifty-seventh Annual Report Amalgamated Society of Engineers, 1907, pp. iv and v.

ATTITUDE OF LABOR TOWARD CONCILIATION— GREAT BRITAIN.

191

plications, and what steps to take with a view to an amicable settle
ment or to prevent the same encroachment being made upon members
employed by other firms. After a strike or lockout has taken place the
executive committee shall be kept informed by the branch what steps
are taken from time to time, and obtain their sanction or approval
of engagements made with kindred societies or committees to effect a
satisfactory issue of the dispute, whilst no settlement shall be effected
until the executive committee have given their consent.” 1
If occasion warranted it, the application of the conciliation act
might be used under the latitude of this rule, but up to the present
our system has proven all sufficient.
These references to our system must not be construed as objections
to the conciliation act or any reasonable proposition or system that
can be devised by which stoppages of industrial operations can be
avoided. We believe strongly in peaceful methods and exert our
selves toward that end.
I have no criticism to offer or objection to make to the Conciliation
Act of 1896 or its administration. I believe it has been the means
by which manj grievances have been settled among those seeking
relief from their burdens who have had no other resource. I do,
however, think the act is deficient in that it lacks finality, so that
when a conference fails to reach an agreement the matter stands in
the same position from which it started. There is nothing left but
the old, old struggle—a strike or a lockout. During such emergencies
when a deadlock is reached I favor the authority of a chairman with
a deciding vote, whose decision should be final.
I consider it should then be a matter of honor and an evidence of
intelligent development for both parties to accept his award and keep
the wheels of industry moving.
My experience has led me to see the superiority of centralized
authority over what we call local autonomy to such an extent that I
am strongly in favor of compulsory arbitration of labor disputes.
My views in this respect do not add to my popularity, but neverthe
less that is my conviction, and I have no hesitation in saying it.
Mr. Dawtry’s faith in the virtue of peaceful methods rather than
harsh ones in the prevention of labor disputes is emphasized in his
annual report for the year 1910:
Referring specially to the engineering trades, although it might
be said we have not been without our small domestic troubles, here
and there, we have been happily free from the organized or, still
worse, the unorganized strike, and while this has been the case the
interests of our members have received due and full attention at
both local and central conferences with the employers, by the way,
showing conclusively the gains by peaceful negotiations need have
no fear from comparison with the methods of force and war. In
the face of a threatened reduction at Bolton and District an advance
of wages was secured under favorable conditions, and covering a
period of four years. Birkenhead, Bradford, Sandycroft, Rugby,
and Earlestown also secured advances by means of negotiation, and
last, but not least, in November, although trade was far from good,
an advance of 2s. (49 cents) per week in wages, payable in two in
1 Rules of Steam Engine Makers’ Society, pp. 109 and 110.

192

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

stallments at a six months’ interval, was secured in central conference
for the northeast coast, thus bringing the wages up to Is. (24 cents)
higher than previously attained, the agreement being binding on both
sides for a period of five years. We may here say this settlement
alone on the northeast coast, compared with the very poor results of
the “ other methods,” amply and fully justified the work of the con
ference table between responsible representatives for the year 1910.
Demarcation questions, also uniform rates and conditions recognized
by contractors in Government dockyards, have been subjects of dis
cussion with the engineering and shipbuilding employers in central
conference, and we trust may lead to satisfactory settlement in due
.course. We are also pleased to note agreements have been arrived
&t with numerous local employers’ associations putting out-allowances
and other conditions of employment upon a more satisfactory foot
ing than hitherto. We hope to see this method of procedure more
generally followed, especially in the large centers of industry and
notably the northeast coast, as this would end once and for all much
continuous bickering and dispute, and, after all, a genuine tradeunionist should be as anxious to avoid conflict and strife as well as
have the ability to strike and strike hard when unfortunately dire
necessity alone presents itself.1
That part of the agreement entered into by the Steam Engine
Makers’ Society and kindred trades with the Engineering Employers’
Federation for the purpose of avoiding stoppages of work is here
with shown:
A g r e em en t m a d e t h i s 22 d d a y of M a r c h , 1907, b e t w e e n t h e E n g in e e r in g
E m pl o y e r s ’ F ed er a tio n ( h e r e in a f t e r called “ t h e F e d e r a t io n ’*) of t h e
ONE PART, AND THE AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS, THE STEA!M ENGINE
M a k e r s ’ S o c ie ty , a n d t h e U n it e d M a c h in e W o r k e r s ’ A s s o c ia t io n (SEttEINAFTER CALLED “ THE TRADE-UNIONS ” ) OF THE OTHER PART.

The representatives of the Engineering Employers’ Federation on the one
hand and of the engineering trade-unions on the other being met in joint con
ference, and being convinced that the interests of each will be best served and
the rights of each best maintained by a mutual agreement, hereby decide to
adopt measures to avoid friction and stoppage of work.
It is, therefore, agreed as follows:—
PROVISIONS FOR AVOIDING DISPUTES.

With a view to avoid disputes, deputations of workmen shall be received
by their employers, by appointment, for mutual discussion of any question
in the settlement of which both parties are directly concerned; or it shall be
competent for an official of the trade-union to approach the local secretary of
the employers’ association with regard to any such question; or it shall be
competent for either party to bring the question before a local conference to
be held between the local association of employers and the local representatives
of the trade-unions.
In the event of either party desiring to raise any question, a local conference
for this purpose may be arranged by application to the secretary of the em
ployers’ association or of the trade-union concerned, as the case may be.
1 Eighty-sixth Annual Report Steam Engine Makers’ Society, pp. vi and vii.

ATTITUDE OF LABOR, TOWAKD CONCILIATION— GKEAT BRITAIN. 1 9 3

Local conferences shall be held within 12 working days from the receipt
of the application by the secretary of the employers’ association or of the tradeunion or trade-unions concerned.
Failing settlement at a local conference of any question brought before it,
it shall be competent for either party to refer the matter to the executive board
of the federation and the central authority of the trade-union or trade-unions
concerned.
Central conferences shall be held at the earliest date which can be conven
iently arranged by the secretaries of the federation and of the trade-union or
trade-unions concerned.
There shall be no stoppage of work either of a partial or of a general char
acter, but work shall proceed under the current conditions until the procedure
provided for above has been carried through.
CONSTITUTION OF CONFERENCES.

An organizing delegate of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers shall be
recognized as a local official entitled to take part in any local conference, but
only in his own division. In case of sickness his place shall be taken by a sub
stitute appointed by the executive council.
Any member of the executive council or the general secretary of the Amal
gamated Society of Engineers may attend local conferences, provided that the
member of the executive council shall attend only such conferences as are held
within the division represented by him.
A member of the executive council or the general secretary of the Steam
Engine Makers’ Society and of the United Machine Workers’ Association, re
spectively, may attend any local conference in which the societies or either of
them are directly concerned.
Central conferences shall be composed of members of the executive board of
the federation and members of the central authority of the trade-union or
trade-unions concerned.
An employer who refuses to employ trade-unionists will not be eligible to
sit in conferences.
COAL MINERS.

The mining industry of Great Britain seems at this time (Septem
ber, 1911) to be well fortified with conciliation boards.1
The president of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain (Mr.
Enoch Edwards) and the miners’ agent of the federation (Mr. W.
Brace) both agreed that the application of the principles of volun
tary conciliation, and at times of arbitration, had proven valuable in
the coal trade.
The miners have used their boards so long and so frequently that
they are no longer a novelty or an experiment. Their attitude can
be summed up in a few short sentences expressed by Mr. Brace.
Our miners’ boards are all voluntary. Thejr are altogether outside
of the conciliation act. They differ in the various coal fields.
’ Many other miners were conferred with, including men who dig
in the mines daily and those who have been selected to represent them
1 For typical agreements in this industry, see Appendix IV, p. 144.

194

BULLETIN OP THE BUREAU OP LABOR.

in business or politics. (The Miners’ Federation has 15 of its mem
bers in the present Parliament.) They were practically all agreed
that their conciliation system was a big improvement over their
old method.
Some few were met who treated the whole subject with scorn
because at times the boards had not made complete awards to the
men, and practically none were willing to say that conciliation was
a complete antidote for stoppages. Many laughingly said, u We have
to shut ’em up once in awhile,” etc. Others more sober-minded rather
grimly remarked, “ The owners close the pits if we get too radical.”
The average miner was philosophical and said, “ Conciliation with a
chairman to cast the deciding vote is the best scheme, it keeps the
hot-heads on both sides under control.”
COTTON SPINNERS.

The general secretary of the Provincial Association of Fine Cotton
Spinners (Mr. A. H. Gill), with headquarters at Bolton, discussing
the subject of conciliation, expressed himself as follows:
I am in favor of conciliation effected by means of mutually selected
boards representing practical men engaged in the industry.
I am not in favor of arbitration, because I do not think it possible
for any man to render an impartial decision.
The good offices of the administrators of the Conciliation Act of
1896 have been engaged several times in the textile industry. Such
services have been very helpful. Their tactful assistance averted at
strike among the spinners m the Oldham district that would have
affected 10,000 persons directly, and an immense number^ of others
in the industry indirectly. At another time a strike took place and
lasted seven weeks, but the Board was not able to intervene.
In the “ George Howe ” case, where the issue was partly personal,
but mainly a strained definition placed upon a clause affecting the
card-room workers, the Board was helpful and so credited by the
textile workers.
In the early years of the act we looked upon it with some suspicion
and watched its operations very keenly. It has proven useful in the
settlement of small disputes where little or no organization has been
established by the workmen.
Because the act has proven helpful our confidence in it has im
proved and the tendency to submit matters of disputes to conciliation
and arbitration boards is increasing, especially through the Board of
Trade “ panel of arbitrators.”
The administration of the act, coupled with its moral influence and
its political influence, has undoubtedly operated to prevent strikes
and lockouts. It has surely been the means of maintaining peace
and improving working conditions.
There is not much unfavorable criticism concerning the methods
under which the act is operated, and positively no complaint as to
its cost.
Outside the railways there is not much complaint made as to de
lays and not much fault found with decisions on account of alleged
bias.

ATTITUDE OF LABOR TOWARD CONCILIATION— GREAT BRITAIN.

195

Ordinarily the boards deal only with the specific questions at issue.
This is as it should be, in our opinion.
Sometimes difficulties arise concerning the interpretation of awards
and agreements, but these are usually adjusted satisfactorily on
resubmission or reconsideration. Ordinarily there is not much diffi
culty in effecting the acceptance of awards and decisions. Our
people may growl a bit, but they will accept a decision. The sport
ing proclivities of the British people make such an attitude inevitable.
I have no suggestion to offer as to a change in the act or in its
procedure other than a desire to see it operated more speedily in rail
road complaints.
The act is of no use to the workers who are not organized, because
they are not intelligent nor courageous enough to crystallize their
complaints or to adopt the modern means of self-help that accom
pany collective action. In cases of revolt among such men, how
ever, the act has been found useful in two ways: (1) It can be used
•to dispose of the trouble pending. (2) Meanwhile an opportunity is
afforded our trade-union officials to spread the doctrine of organiza
tion. By this means it enables us to increase our strength numeri
cally, and to some extent it increases our power educationally and
otherwise.
A most elaborate document called the “ Brooklands Agreement”
governs the cotton-spinning industry.1
After the dispute in the George Howe case, referred to by Mr. Gill,
this collective agreement was amended as follows:
On September 29, 1911, at a conference of representatives of the
associations concerned, viz., the Federation of Master Cotton Spin
ners’ Associations and the Amalgamated Association of Cotton Spin
ners, the Amalgamated Association of Card and Blowing Room
Operatives, and the Amalgamated Association of Warpers, Reelers,
and Winder^, which affects 150,000 workpeople in the cotton-spinning
industry, the following clause (6a) was added to the agreement :

When the procedure of clause 6 has been gone through without a settlement
having been effected and a strike or lockout has taken place, the dispute sub
committees of the organizations which are parties to the dispute shall, with
out any formal application being made by either side, meet in Manchester at
the same place and hour as the last meeting prior to the strike or lockout, com
mencing within a period not exceeding 14 days from the commencement of
the strike or lockout, and subsequent meetings shall be held in Manchester
until the strike or lockout is terminated, at the same place and hour, at periods
not exceeding four weeks from the date of the last meeting.

In addition, the following resolution was adopted at the conference:

That when a strike or lockout has commenced it shall be an instruction to
the general secretaries of the organizations which are parties to the dispute
to at once communicate by letter with the secretary of the other side, in order
to fix the definite date on which, under clause 6a, the joint meeting shall be
held.12
1 See Appendix VIII for that portion of the Brooklands Agreement that covers the ma
chinery for the adjustment of disputes.
2 Labor Gazette, October, 1911, pp. 364 and 365.

196

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.
WARPERS, WINDERS, AND WEAVERS.

The “ Joint rules for the settlement of trade disputes in the weav
ing, winding, and warping departments of the North and Northeast
Lancashire Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers’ Association and the
Amalgamated Weavers’ Association ” are contained in the “ Uniform
List of Prices,” etc. This list is a marvel of detail and covers every
conceivable variety of work and a multitude of operations, dealing
with the direct interests of 200,000 people.
A full text of the “ Joint rules” may be found in Appendix IX.
Clause 5 is considered such a novelty and so adroit that it is repeated
here for the sake of giving publicity to such a farsighted provision
for a speedy termination of a dispute that might otherwise be unduly
prolonged. As this agreement was signed in September, 1910, it will
be seen that this clause antedates by more than a year the clause
added to the Brooklands Agreement.

5? Whenever a settlement of any trade dispute shall not have been come to
and operatives are on strike or locked out of employment in consequence
thereof, then meetings shall be held periodically between representatives of
the North and Northeast Lancashire Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Asso
ciation and of the Northern Counties Textile Trades Federation; the first of
such meetings shall be held in Manchester four weeks after and at the same
place and hour as the last meeting of representatives in the same dispute, and
subsequent meetings shall be held at the same place and hour periodically
every four weeks until the dispute be settled, and without any formal appli
cation by either party for any such meeting.1
BUILDING TRADES.

The secretary of the Building Industries Federation of London,
Mr. George Dew; Mr. J. Cummings, of the National Association of
Operative Plasterers; and the general chairman of the executive
council of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, Mr.
W. T. Wilson, with headquarters in London, were questioned on the
subject of conciliation and the benefits their trades had received
from the act of 1896. Several local men in other branches of the
industry were also conversed with in London and outside towns, and
attempts made to learn their views. Very few seemed to be at all
conversant with its existence and those who had knowledge of it
either did not have a high appreciation of the act or, for some other
reason, declined to discuss its merits or demerits.
Mr. Wilson, however, expressed himself freely. His preference
was decidedly in favor of the mutual conciliation boards established
among the various branches of the building trades occupations, and
more especially the National Board of Conciliation, which controlled
the industry generally.12
1 Uniform List of Prices, etc., p. 93. See also Appendix IX in this Bulletin, p. 158.
2 See Appendix VII in this Bulletin, p. 153.

ATTITUDE OF LABOR TOWARD CONCILIATION— GREAT BRITAIN.

197

Mr. Wilson explained its operation, as follows:
If a grievance arises or a proposition is submitted by either work
men or employers in a given locality, the subject is referred to the
local board, which consists of equal representation from employers
and workmen of each trade. Upon failure to agree, the matter is
then submitted to a central board, of which there are four, viz, the
Northern, the Midlands, the Southeast, and the Southern. These
boards meet when occasion warrants in the place most convenient to
the inquiry, which is mutually agreed upon. If these central boards
fail to effect a satisfactory adjustment, the matter under dispute is
then referred to the national board. If failure to adjust then occurs,
strikes or lockouts may then take place in the trade or trades involved.
Sympathetic strikes usually follow if nonunionists are then employed.
Even though this procedure looks tedious and cumbersome, the
boards act with promptness and, in most cases, make satisfactory
settlements.
We arrive at conclusions by a majority vote. The chairman has
a vote, but only as a member of the board. In no case can he give
a casting vote.
We are not in favor of umpires or arbitrators, because we doubt
their ability to be impartial.
Our mutual boards have prevented a great many disputes which
otherwise would have terminated in a stoppage of operations. De
cisions must be made on the merits of the question or questions sub
mitted. Compromises are not accepted. We have never had occasion
to use the national Conciliation Act of 1896.
In cases that have come under our observation that have been sub
mitted to arbitration, in trades other than in the building industries,
we have known of arbitrators seeking first-hand information from
employers. We consider such procedure very tactless, because it
shakes the confidence of the workmen and creates an impression that
a bias exists.
We have also observed that the awards are at times vague, failure
to interpret indefinite clauses causes friction, and an endless chain of
disputes follows. These are some of the reasons why we in the build
ing trades prefer to handle our own affairs rather than permit them
to go to the act of 1896.
We are also of the opinion that outside intervention or conciliation
is not the most practicable, largely because conciliators or mediators
are not sufficiently informed or acquainted with either the conditions
or the men to be able to consciously grasp the viewpoints of the
workers. In a word, they can not put themselves in the place of the
workers.
TRADES-UNION CONGRESS.

No data could be obtained by the writer to show that previous to
its passage the Conciliation Act of 1896 had been either urged or in
dorsed by the labor organizations, but there was a general opinion
among the trade-union officials that the act was a result of the suc
cessful working of the local conciliation boards established between
many of the organizations and employers. It was generally agreed
that Parliament had passed the act without either request or opposi

198

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

tion on the part of the labor organizations, but that the latter, while
not wishing to commit themselves to an advocacy of the bill, had felt
that its moral effect would be helpful and that it might aid in pre
venting such dislocations of commerce and industry as had been
caused by the many upheavals in the early nineties, notably by the
dockers’ strike.
Perhaps the best .exponent of the attitude of the labor organiza
tions as a whole toward a given subject is the action of the TradesUnion Congress, which meets annually. This body has placed itself
on record a number of times, both in regard to voluntary and to com
pulsory arbitration or conciliation. It is quite evident that a careful
watch is kept upon the act of 1896, and that any alterations of the
scheme are closely scrutinized lest they should prove harmful to the
workers’ interests.
In 1908, by way of increasing the effectiveness of the conciliation
act, the Board of Trade established a court of arbitration.1 The
plan included the appointment by the Board of Trade of three panels,
one composed of “ persons of eminence and impartiality ” from whom
chairmen should be chosen, the second of representatives of the em
ployers, and the third of representatives of the workers. In case of
any request for the services of the court, it should be formed of either
two or four representatives of employers and workers chosen from
these panels, with one from the chairmen’s panel to preside over
their deliberations and to have a casting vote.
In response to this action by the Board of Trade, and with special
reference to the appointed panels of arbitrators, Mr. T. Welsh, dele-,
gate from the Yellum Bookbinders to the Forty-second Trades:Uiiion
Congress, moved the following resolution, September 5, 1909:
This congress, while accepting the conciliation scheme of the Eight
Hon. Winston Churchill as a stage of industrial evolution, is of the
opinion that the workmen chosen to serve on the panels of arbitration
ought first to be elected or selected by this congress, as arbitrary
appointments are always open to the danger of being used in the in
terests of a political party rather than in that of the nation.12
In discussing his resolution Mr. Welsh said that the resolution
was the recognition of a democratic principle, and asked for the right
of the organized workers to elect their own representatives. There
was a great danger in the near future if they had a reactionary Gov
ernment and men were appointed antagonistic to trade-unionism.
Arbitrary appointments by one man might lead to political jobbery.
The resolution was formally seconded, and passed practically with
out debate.
1 For constitution of court, regulations governing its procedure, etc., see pp. 141-143.
2 Trades-Union Congress Report, 1909, p. 180.

ATTITUDE OF LABOR TOWARD CONCILIATION----GREAT BRITAIN.

199

The parliamentary committee of the congress took the matter up
in a formal way with the Board of Trade on March 10, 1910, and on
April 5 received a reply from Mr. G. K. Askwith, of the labor de
partment, in which he said in part:
I am directed by the Board of Trade to advert to your * * *
reference to the court of arbitration and * * * the appoint
ments on panels of arbitration. I am to say that the suggestions
contained m the resolution have been carefully considered by the
president, but that he is of opinion that in view of the special and
delicate character of the duties to be discharged by the court of
arbitration it is of the first importance that the members should be
appointed in the way best calculated to insure public confidence in
the impartiality of the tribunal, and he thinks that this confidence
is most likely to be secured and retained by continuing the present
mode of appointing the panels.1
In 1910, while the forty-third congress was in session, it was
moved and carried that the parliamentary committee should be in
structed “ to prepare a report on the various existing forms of con
ciliation in industrial disputes, both British and foreign.” The re
port was presented to the next congress. The chief significance of
this action lies in the fact that it was taken with the avowed purpose
of securing information “ for the guidance of congress in any future
discussions that might arise upon this important subject.”
COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

If the attitude of the congress toward the act of 1896 and to
official machinery for conciliation in general is strictly neutral, no
such term can be applied to its position in regard to compulsory
arbitration, or to any compulsory dealings with labor disputes.
Several efforts have been made to secure its indorsement of com
pulsive machinery.
During the session of the thirty-fifth congress, on September 4,
1902, Mr. J. A. Seddon, a delegate from the National Shop Assistants
(retail clerks’ organization), moved the following resolution:
That this congress call upon the legislature to pass an act creating
courts of arbitration; such courts to be constituted by an equal num
ber of workmen and employers’ representatives, and presided over
by a lord justice, who shall take evidence from the party aggrieved
or their representatives. Legal experts to be in all cases debarred
from acting as representatives. The power of the courts to be com
pulsory, provided all efforts for conciliation have failed. Concilia
tion courts for the various industrial centers to be formed and to be
termed district courts. In all cases workmen’s representatives to be
selected by trade-unions as commissioners of the aforesaid courts of
arbitration. For the effective dealing with disputes commissioners
to be constituted for the great staple trades. This act to apply to
1 Trades-Union Congress Report, 1910, p. 75.

200

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

all industrial disputes in Great Britain and Ireland. We therefore
instruct the parliamentary committee to draft a bill for the purposes
aforesaid.1
A spirited debate followed the presentation of this resolution; it
was ably defended by delegates from the shop assistants, dockers,
boot and shoe workers, furnishing trades, and others.
Those opposing it represented the gas workers, boiler makers, car
penters, and others, the miners* delegates being vehemently opposed
to any compulsory proposition, but declaring themselves as heartily
favoring voluntary conciliation boards and arbitration courts.
On a vote being taken, the proposition was rejected by a majority
of 658,000 votes; the votes being 303,000 ayes, 961,000 noes.
In 1905, during the session of the thirty-eighth annual congress,
Delegate Ben Tillett, of the Dockers’ Union, presented a resolution
calling for the formation of industrial boards of conciliation and
arbitration in all large industrial centers, and making provision for
either voluntary or compulsory arbitration, according to the choice
of the organization concerned. The portion dealing with this point
was as follows:12
There shall be two sections defining: (a) Voluntary conciliation
and arbitration; (6) compulsory conciliation and arbitration, option
to be left to unions to register under either section.
Considerable discussion followed, the advocates of the motion
pointing out the advantages of compulsory action, and dwelling an
the fact that it would render possible a really authoritative inquiry
into the state of a business and the validity of an employer’s con
tentions as to the feasibility of raising wages or the necessity for
cutting them, while the opponents emphatically refused to trust their
industrial lives and fortunes to the hands of an arbiter. The motion
was put to a vote, the results standing: For the resolution, 673,000;
against, 765,000.
During the next four years resolutions providing similar plans
for compulsory arbitration were introduced, but the feeling against
any such scheme appeared to grow steadily stronger, and the resolu
tion of 1909 was lost by a larger majority than had been cast against
any of the earlier motions—1,000,000 votes.3
On August 17,1911, one of the labor members of Parliament intro
duced a drastic bill providing for the settlement of labor disputes
by compulsory means. It was ordered to be read a second time on
October 24, and to be printed. After making the usual provisions
for calling on the Board of Trade in cases of industrial disputes, and
of its appointment within 15 days from the receipt of the application
1Thirty-fifth Trades-Union Congress, 1902, pp. 06 and 67.
2 Trades-Union Congress Report, 1905, p. 128.
3Forty-second Trades-Union Congress Report, 1909, pp. 177-179.

ATTITUDE OF LABOR TOWARD CONCILIATION— GREAT BRITAIN. 2 0 1

of a board of conciliation and investigation, consisting of three mem
bers, the bill provided in effect that—
It shall be unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a lockout,
or for any employee to go on strike on account of any dispute before
or during a reference of such dispute to a board of conciliation and
investigation. Any employer declaring or causing a lockout shall
be liable to a fine of not less than £20 [$97.33] nor more than £200
[$973.30] for each day or part of a day that such lockout exists.
Any employee who goes on strike shall be liable to a fine of not less
than £2 [$9.73] nor more than £10 [$48.67] a day.
Any person who incites, encourages, or aids in any manner any
employer to declare or continue a lockout, or any employee to go or
continue on strike, shall be liable to a fine of not less than £10
[$48.67] or more than £200 [$973.30].
During the forty-fourth session of the Trades-Union Congress, on
September 8, 1911, the subject of this bill was brought up and the
following resolution was presented:
That this congress hereby protests emphatically against the action
of Mr. Crooks and other members of the Labor Party in introducing
a bill into the House of Commons for dealing with labor disputes
without the consent or authority of either the trade-unionists of the
country or the Labor Party; and we desire to make it clear that we
will by every means in our power resist every attempt to prevent or
hinder the right of the workers to strike at any time when they con
sider such action necessary in defense or furtherance of their rights.1
The resolution was warmly supported, the bill being attacked on the
ground that it practically took away the right of the worker to
strike at all; that the principle of compulsory arbitration was an
encroachment upon the liberty of the employee; that the proposed
fines discriminated grossly against the men;12 and that the whole effect
of the bill would be to tie the hands of labor to an unfair and dan
gerous degree. The resolution was carried unanimously.
COMPULSORY CONCILIATION AND INQUIRY INTO DISPUTES.

The Trades-Union Congress has uniformly shown a strong objec
tion to compulsive measures of any kind, even when these did not go
to the length of enforcing arbitration. During the session of the
fortieth congress, in 1907, Delegate Ben Turner, from the Batley
weavers, moved:
That this congress requests the parliamentary committee to secure
the introduction of a conciliation-board bill into Parliament, making
it compulsory on both employers and employed, before a strike or
lockout takes place, to submit the points in dispute to such board, with
a view of, if possible, coming to terms and thus avoiding a dispute
1Trades-Union Congress Report, 1911, p. 229,
2Take the case of an employer who may have 5,000 men working for him. If he

locks them out he may be fined £10 ($48.67) ; but if the 5,000 workmen come out, they
may be fined £50,000 ($243,325).— Idem, p. 230.

81326°—Bull. 98—12-----14

202

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

or lockout. Such board shall only have power to arrange a settle
ment with the full consent in writing of both parties to such dispute
or lockout.
Mr. Turner defended this proposition by saying, in part: “ Make
the parties to a dispute talk first and fight afterwards. The practice
now is to fight first and talk afterwards. Conciliation boards would
not retard trade-unionism; they would foster its growth.”
Mr. Dawtry, delegate from the steam-engine makers, said, in part:
“ The strike is a broken reed. Kecognition of the unions would be
obtained under the plan.”
Others, in opposition, ridiculed the proposition, saying “ compul
sory conciliation ” was a worse misnomer than “ compulsory arbitra
tion.”
The motion was defeated by 85,000 votes, 655,000 votes being cast
for it and 740,000 votes against.
In the forty-first congress held in 1908, Mr. D. C. Cummings, dele
gate from the boiler makers, moved the following resolution for the
purpose of requesting Parliament to strengthen the Conciliation Act
of 1896:1
In view of the necessity of preventing industrial disputes involv
ing lengthened stoppage of work, and consequent loss to all parties
concerned, this congress is of opinion that the time has now arrived
when the provisions of the Conciliation Act of 1896 should be
strengthened in the direction of conferring compulsory powers on
the Board of Trade to inquire into any industrial dispute when re
quested by either party. Pending such inquiry and report no strike
or lockout shall take place. Congress hereby instructs the par
liamentary committee to take whatever steps they may deem advisable
to bring the foregoing into law.
This proposition was discussed much more temperately than the
former ones above referred to, but upon a vote being taken it was
defeated by 362,000 votes, 616,000 votes being cast for it and 978,000
votes against. Old-established unions, like the shipwrights and boiler
makers, supported it; the compositors, seamen, tin-plate workers, and
weavers opposed it.
At the next congress, on September 10, 1909, Mr. Dawtry, dele
gate from the steam-engine makers, introduced practically the same
resolution.12 It was declared lost by a large majority, no record vote
being taken.
1 Forty-first Trades-Union Congress Report, pp. 173 and 175.
2 Forty-second Trades-Union Congress Report, p. 180.

CONCILIATION, ARBITRATION, AND SANITATION IN THE CLOAK,
SUIT, AND SKIRT INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.
BY CHARLES H . WINSLOW.

INTRODUCTION.

The signing of the Protocol, or treaty of peace, in September, 1910,
between the Cloak, Suit, and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Asso
ciation and the Joint Board of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Unions
of New York City not only terminated a bitterly contested strike but
it established machinery of mediation and arbitration for dealing
with future disputes concerning wages, hours, and working condi
tions, and machinery of inspection and regulation for dealing with
sanitary conditions. In the year and a half of its operation the
success of this machinery has been such in the peaceful adjustment
of many disputes and in the betterment of sanitary conditions as
to make the study of its work of special interest and value.
The most significant feature of the Protocol was its establishment
of three new agencies—the preferential union shop, a scheme for the
adjustment of disputes which virtually set up a system of industrial
courts for the trade^ and the Joint Board of Sanitary Control—
which have already affected profoundly the conditions of the
industry.
The device of the preferential union shop was designed to meet
the situation arising from the insistence of the manufacturers upon
an open and of the unions upon a closed shop. Under this preferen
tial union shop arrangement the employer is bound to maintain union
standards as to hours, etc., and to give the preference in employing
and retaining help to union members. On their side the unions are
bound to maintain discipline in the shop among their members, to
restrain them from breaches of contract and unauthorized strikes,
and to see that they live up to the conditions of the Protocol; in
other words, in return for the preference shown them, the unions
assume full responsibility for the conduct of their members.
The machinery for settling disputes consists of a Board of Griev
ances and a Board of Arbitration, on each of which the manufac
turers and the unions are equally represented. A dispute between an
employer and an employee over wages, hours, or conditions of work
may be at once, without trouble or expense, referred to the clerks of

203

204

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

the Board of Grievances. Should they be unable to settle it, the
Board of Grievances passes upon the matter, after which, if either
disputant is still unsatisfied, the question may be carried to the
Board of Arbitration. In practice, this last step has never been taken
in the case of an individual dispute, and the Board of Arbitration
has been called upon only to settle differences arising between the
manufacturers’ association on the one hand and the unions on the
other. In signing the Protocol both sides bound themselves to ac
cept the decisions of the Board of Grievances and the Board of
Arbitration.
The Joint Board of Sanitary Control is designed, first, to do away
with the intolerable conditions existing in some of the shops by
bringing to bear against them the organized sentiment of both em
ployers and employees, and, second, to raise the standard of sanitary
requirements throughout the industry. The boards which is made up
of representatives of the manufacturers, the unions, and the public,
is empowered to establish standards to which the signers of the
Protocol bound themselves to conform. As the unions are bound to>
enforce the decisions of the board wherever their members are em
ployed, practically every shop in the city, whether or not its owner
signed the Protocol, is brought under supervision and control in
sanitary matters. The board has been organized a little over one
year, and it has already proved to be a singularly efficient and farreaching agency for the improvement of conditions.
Prior to the strike of 1910 conditions in the cloak, suit, and skirt
industry, so far as organization was concerned, either among the
employers or employees, had been for a great number of years in
a disorganized and chaotic state. The manufacturers in the face of
a long drawn out and bitterly contested strike made every effort to
place their association on a firm basis.
Cloak, suit, and skirt makers’ unions have been in existence in
New York City for a period of more than 22 years. Often their
ranks have been depleted to a mere handful of men with a few
staunch leaders. These same leaders have as frequently seen their
ranks gradually swollen to the point where it has taken all their
foresight and energy to maintain discipline and prevent war meas
ures taking the place of peace methods. This condition is largely
due to the influx of immigrants seeking admission to the garment
making trades. Probably no other trade organization has to deal
with this problem to the same extent as the garment workers. It is
estimated that 10,000 immigrants are absorbed by this industry each
year. This in itself imposes no small task, as this heterogeneous
multitude of divers races and nationalities must be taught the lesson
of organization.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

205

The Manufacturers’ Protective Association, which just prior to
the strike represented 75 establishments, employing approximately
10,000 workers, gradually increased its membership to 123 firms at
the time of signing the Protocol, thereby increasing the number of
people employed by association members to 15,000.
The cloak, suit, and skirt makers’ unions in May, 1910, repre
sented a membership of 6,000, but by July 1, or a week prior to the
strike, had increased their membership to 22,000. The unions con
tinued to recruit members during the period of the strike so that,
at its expiration, the membership was approximately 40,000.
STRIKE OF 1910.

The strike went into effect by order of the unions July 7,1910, and
terminated September 2, 1910. It was mainly against the members
of the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association,
who were engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling
ladies’ cloaks, suits, or skirts of various grades in and about the city
of New York. In the conduct of the business of these particular em
ployers there were employed designers, cutters, pressers, tailors, and
other help, both male and female, to the number of about 60,000
people.
Prior to the beginning of the strike the employees had not sub
mitted their grievances or demands nor had they formulated any
statement of grievances or demands. After the strike had been going
on for some time the unions submitted as a statement of their main
grievances and demands the following:

Low wages, unreasonable night work, work in tenement houses, the disre
garding of holidays and Sundays, subcontracting, discrimination against union
men, the irregular payment of wages, the exacting of security, the charging
for material and electricity, and the blacklisting of active union men.
To remedy these grievances it is in our opinion necessary to establish a living
standard of wages, to regulate the hours of labor, to limit night work, to pre
vent work on holidays, to abolish all charges for electricity and appliances, to
do away with tenement-house work, to prevent discrimination, to provide for
the regular payment of wages in cash both by manufacturers and outside
contractors, to do away with inside subcontracting, to establish a permanent
board of arbitration which is to settle grievances, the unions and employers to be
equally represented on the board of arbitration, the appointment of shop com
mittees and shop delegates.
We are ready to enter into a discussion with you of these grievances, and if
a satisfactory adjustment of them is reached are prepared to recommend a
settlement of the strike. In the event of such settlement every employee who
participated in the strike to be reinstated, the terms of any settlement which
may be reached to be reduced to writing and signed by both parties through
their representatives.1
*Tlie Cloak Makers’ Strike, issued by the Cloak, Suit, and Skirt Manufacturers’ Pro
tective Association, New York City, 1910, p. 20.

206

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

Disinterested friends of the contending sides endeavored for weeks
to bring them together, but to no avail. Later, however, after much
maneuvering by each side to the controversy, which required the good
offices of many public-spirited men both in and out of New York,
the contending groups consented to a conference. It was agreed in
advance of the conference that the closed shop was a subject which
could not be discussed. This conference took place in New York
City, beginning Thursday, July 28,1910, and ending August 1,1910.
At this conference there were 10 representatives of the manufac
turers, 10 of the unions, an attorney representing the manufacturers’
committee, and an attorney representing the committee for the work
ers. A prominent attorney who had been influential in bringing
about the meeting served as its chairman.
The specific grievances to be discussed, according to the agreement
of counsel representing the two parties, and the order in which they
should be taken up and disposed of in the conference, were as follows i1
1. The question of the subject of electricity or power and materials.
2. The question of work in tenement houses.
3. The exacting of security from employees.
4. The discrimination against union men.
5. Blacklisting of active union men.
6. Overtime and night work.
7. The question of holidays and Sundays.
8. The irregular payment of wages.
9. Subcontracting.
10. The claim of low wages.
11. Sanitary conditions.
12. The general method of enforcing agreements between the association—
the manufacturers’ association—and the unions.

The committees from both sides conferred for four days and thor
oughly discussed the conditions of the trade from an intimate ac
quaintance with the facts; but notwithstanding this, the conference
was broken off at the end of this time. It was clear to all that cir
cumstances over which no one individual had any control had led to
great abuses in the industry. Ruthless competition was constantly
tending to drag down the refutable manufacturer to the level of the
disreputable employer, who was pushing to the wall those who would
deal fairly with their employees. Insanitary conditions in the shops,
long hours, and low wages of the low-standard manufacturers were
becoming a menace to the industry.
PROFFER OF SETTLEMENT BY MANUFACTURERS.

At the suggestion of the chairman, just prior to adjournment at
the expiration of the third day of the conference, when there was
hope of a speedy settlement of differences, the committee of the manuxThe Cloak Makers’ Strike, issued by the Cloak, Suit, and Skirt Manufacturers’ Pro
tective Association, New York City, 1910, p. 23.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

207

facturers was requested to reduce to writing the basis of a settlement
and present it at the following session, which they did, and which
reads as follows:

We are prepared to recommend to the members of our association the fol
lowing :
That, so far as practicable, and within a reasonable period, electric power
be installed for the operation of machines, and that no charge for power be
hereafter made to employees.
We are prepared to recommend to our members that no charge be made
against employees for materials, except, of course, when caused by the negli
gence or dishonesty of the employee.
We are not prepared to recommend the abolition of the deposit system for
shuttles, bobbins, silks, and parts of machinery.
We are prepared to recommend the establishment of a uniform deposit, say,
of $1, with uniform deposit receipts, and are prepared to adopt rules and
regulations in our association for enforcing the prompt return of all deposits to
employees entitled to the same, and in such cases where at the present time the
deposits are of a larger amount than $1, we are prepared to recommend to our
members that they return the larger amount.
In the case where the employee is not in sufficient funds to make the deposit,
and is deserving, the deposit shall be postponed until after the first pay day.
We accept in good faith the assurance of the union representatives that they
will join in the establishment of rules and regulations by which to discipline
any members who shall be shown to have been guilty of theft of materials, and
we shall agree not to employ anyone so disciplined by the union.
We are prepared to recommend that no work be given to employees to take
home at night. We believe, however, that rigorous disciplining of workers by
us in our factories and by the union in its organization will be necessary to
make this regulation effective.
In view of the existing provisions in the union constitution, we will in future
make no time contracts with union men. So far as union men are concerned
therefore, the question of security for the performance of contracts becomes
purely theoretical.
We agree to make no time contracts with any of our nonunion shop employees,
excepting foremen, designers, and pattern graders.
We are prepared to recommend that if the union will cooperate, all existing
contracts with union men shall be canceled and securities returned.
We know of no discrimination against union men in our ranks and no black
listing, but we are prepared to discipline rigorously any member of our associa
tion who hereafter shall be proven guilty of violating the pledge already given.
We are prepared to recommend the adoption of the 10 legal holidays subgested. We do not see how shops operating on Sunday for employees observ
ing Saturday and operating on Saturday for employees observing Sunday can
be closed entirely on either day.
We are prepared to adopt rules and regulations for the regular weekly pay
ment of wages and to recommend the payment of wages in cash. These regu
lations must, however, be worked out with due regard to our bookkeeping
difficulties.
We concede that no man should be deprived of pay for unfinished piecework
by reason of the failure of the employer to furnish necessary material, and we
concede that each pieceworker should be paid as soon as his work is inspected
and approved.

208

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

We do not concede, however, that the employers in our association have been
guilty of unreasonable practices in this respect, but if any exist we will do all
in our power to reform these conditions.
We are prepared to recommend that all subcontracting in inside factories be
abolished. We assume that if our members do abolish this system union mem
bers will insist on its abolition in nonunion shops.
We are prepared to recommend the adoption of the following hours of labor:
A working week shall consist of 53 hours in 6 working days.
The following shall be the regular hours of labor: On the first 5 working
days of the week, from 8 a. m. to 12 m .; from 1 p. m. to 6 p. m. Saturday, from
8 a. m. to 12 m., and from 1 to 5 p. m., except during May, June, July, and
August, Saturday half holidays to begin at 12 o’clock.
No overtime work shall be permitted between the 15th day of November and
the 15th day of January, or during the months of June and July, except on
samples.
No overtime work shall be permitted on Saturdays, except to workers not
working on Saturdays, nor on any day for more than 2J hours, nor before 8 a. m.
nor after 8.80 p. m.
For overtime work all week workers shall receive double the usual pay.
We are prepared to recommend the following wages for week workers, the
following minimum schedule of weekly wages:
$25
Machine cutters------25
Regular cutters_____
12
Canvas cutters-------20
Skirt cutters________
20
Jacket pressers-------16
Underpressers---------18
Skirt pressers-______
14
Skirt underpressers—
Part pressers----------10
Reefer pressers._____
16
Reefer underpressers.
12
19
Sample makers-------Sample skirt makers.
19
12
Skirt basters_______
Skirt finishers.--------9
We believe that buttonhole makers must be divided into two classes, on ac
count of the different grades of work. We are prepared to recommend that
in class A they shall receive a minimum of $1.20 per 100 buttonholes and in
class B a minimum of 80 cents per 100 buttonholes.
These week prices we are prepared to recommend on condition that the
unions agree to establish at once the same standards throughout the industry.
We agree that prices for operators and tailors and piece tailors when working
by piecework shall be so adjusted that they shall earn a minimum equivalent
to the minimum doing the same work by week work. We do not believe it is
practicable to fix a standard per hour.
Upon the question of sanitation, we recommend a Joint Board of Sanitary
Control, consisting of representatives from the Manufacturers’ Association and
representatives from the public, whose function it shall be to establish stand
ards of sanitary conditions to which both organizations shall commit their
members and be obligated to maintain to the best of their ability and to the
extent of their power.1
*The Cloak Makers’ Strike, issued by the Cloak, Suit, and Skirt Manufacturers’ Pro
tective Association, New York City, 1910, pp. 101-103.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY. 2 0 9
COUNTER PROPOSITIONS POR SETTLEMENT BY UNIONS.

The committee representing the cloak and skirt makers’ unions,
after careful consideration of the propositions submitted by the com
mittee representing the Cloak and Skirt Manufacturers’ Association,
returned the following:

1. That so far as (these are offered as substitutes in a measure for what
you submitted) practical and by December 1, 1910, electric power be installed
for the operation of the machines, and that no charge for power be hereafter
demanded of employees, and that a competent machinist have charge of the
machines.
2. No charge to be made against employees for material except when caused—
“ for loss of material ” it should be—except when caused by negligence of the
employee.
3. We propose that this proposition be changed to read: “ That no work be
given to employees to make at their homes.,,
4. We offer for No. 4: “ That in view of the existing provisions of the union
constitution in future there shall be no time contracts with any individual
shop employee except foremen and designers, and all existing contracts with
shop employees, other than those above excepted, shall be canceled and the
securities held shaU be returned.”
5. We suggest and recommend that No. 5 read: “ That employees shall not
be required to work during the 10 legal holidays sanctioned by the laws of
New York, and that no employee be permitted to work more than six days in
each wreek, and that those employees who observe Saturday shall be permitted
to work Sunday in lieu thereof.”
6. That a regular weekly pay day shall be established and payment for labor
shall be in cash, and that each pieceworker shall be paid for all work delivered
to and accepted by the foreman.
7. We recommend that this proposition should read: “ That all subcontracting
in the inside factories of the firms be abolished, and we pledge that if this be
done by the employers, that our union will insist upon its abolition in all union
shops.”
8. That a working week shall consist of 49 hours, to be performed in 6 work
ing days, 5 of the days to consist of 9 hours each, the sixth day of 4 hours, thus
establishing the Saturday half holiday.
9. Overtime to be paid for at double the usual rate. Overtime shall not be
permitted during June or July or from November 15 to January 15 or at any
time when all workmen in the employ of the firm or of the firm’s outside con
tractors are not employed, nor before 8 a. m. or after 8.30 p. m., nor for more
than two and one-half hours in any one day.
10. The weekly wage scale originally presented by us, we are unable to con
sent to any modification thereof. The union pledges itself to use its very
best efforts to make the prices agreed upon uniform throughout the industry.
Following is the scale of wages for week hands:
Cutters, not less than $26 per week.
Skirt cutters, not less than $22 per week.
Jacket pressers, not less than $22 per week.
Underpressers, not less than $18 per week.
Skirt pressers, not less than $20 per week.
Skirt underpressers, not less than $16 per week.
Piece pressers, not less than $14 per week.
Reefer pressers, not less than $18 per week.
Reefer underpressers, not less than $14 per week.

210

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

Sample makers, not less than $24 per week.
Skirt makers, not less tlian $24 per week.
Skirt basters, not less than $15 per week.
Skirt finishers, not less than $12 per week.
Buttonhole makers, not less than $1.10 per 100 buttonholes.
11. Upon the question of sanitation we accept the recommendation for a Joint
Board of Sanitary Control, consisting of an equal number of representatives of
the Manufacturers’ Association and the unions, whose function it shall be to
establish standards of sanitary conditions to which both organizations shall
commit their members and be obligated to maintain to the best of their abil
ity and to the full extent of their power.1

In considering the proposition from the manufacturers and the
counterproposition from the unions, the conference developed that
practically every subject could be agreed upon, except the question
of wages and the year-round Saturday half holiday (instead of the
four summer months), both of which matters the contending sides
were willing to leave to arbitration.
These facts were arrived at after nearly a full day’s discussion,
wherein the contending sides agreed to give and take on many minor
questions.
The real issue then became the question of the “ union shop.” The
manufacturers were unalterably opposed to what they considered
the closed shop. The unions believed that notwithstanding the set
tlement of many of their contentions, in order to satisfy the rank
and file of union members, there must be an agreement whereby the
manufacturers should unionize their establishments. This was the
rock on which negotiations split. The employers were willing to
employ a majority of unionists, to make formal expression of sym
pathy with the unions, and to cooperate with the unions for the im
provement of all conditions of employment, but believed this basis of
peace impracticable because of the insistence on what they termed
the u closed shop.” The suggestion was made by the chairman of
an arrangement whereby union members should be preferred to non
union workers in hiring help, but was not accepted as a basis of
agreement. Thus the conference terminated.
A full month intervened before negotiations were renewed. Dur
ing this time the strike was carried on with renewed vigor. Mean
while the same disinterested agencies that were responsible for the
holding of the original conference had succeeded in bringing both
sides together again, the same committee agreeing to serve.
AGREEMENT IN SETTLEMENT OF STRIKE.

The subject of a settlement was taken up at the point where it
had been abandoned a month earlier, namely, the recognition of the
“ union shop.” Considerable discussion ensued as to methods of end
ing the strike, but at the suggestion of the chairman, in order to
1 The Cloak Makers’ Strike, issued by the Cloak, Suit, and Skirt Manufacturers’ Pro
tective Association, New York City, 1910, pp. 108-110.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

211

relieve the contention of the manufacturers on the one hand for an
“ open shop ” and of the unions on the other for a “ closed shop,” the
“ preferential union shop ” idea was offered as a solution. To this
both sides were willing to agree, as it was pointed out that under this
plan none of the rights for which each side was contending was
necessarily sacrificed.
The important features of the final settlement were: A voluntary
agreement of unlimited duration for collective bargaining; a mini
mum wage scale; a working week of 50 hours; a Board of Grievances,
constituting a trade court with a staff of adjusters or mediators of
disputes; a Board of Arbitration of disinterested public men, consti
tuting a court of appeal; a Joint Board of Sanitary Control for the
regulation of sanitary conditions of factories; and the preferential
union shop. The document in which these items were agreed upon
was known as the Protocol. The full text of the Protocol is as
follows:
TEXT OF THE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT.

Protocol of an agreement entered into this 2d day of September, 1910, be
tween the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association, herein
called the manufacturers, and the following locals of the International Ladies’
Garment Workers’ Union, namely: Cloak Operators’ Union No. 1, Cloak and
Suit Tailors’ No. 9, Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Association No. 10,
Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union of Brownsville No. 11, New York Keefer
Makers’ Union No. 17, Skirt Makers’ Union No. 23, Cloak and Skirt Pressers’
Union No. 35, Buttonhole Makers’ Union of New York (Local No. 64), Cloak
and Suit Pressers of Brownsville No. 68, hereinafter called the unions.
Whereas differences have arisen between the manufacturers and their em
ployees who are members of the unions with regard to various matters which
have resulted in a strike, and it is now desired by the parties hereto to ter
minate said strike and to arrive at an understanding with regard to the future
relations between the manufacturers and their employees, it is therefore
stipulated as follows:
First. So far as practicable, and by December 31, 1910, electric power be
installed for the operation of machines, and that no charge for power be made
against any of the employees of the manufacturers.
Second. No charge shall be made against any employee of the manufacturers
for material except in the event of the negligence or wrongful act of the em
ployee resulting in loss or injury to the employer.
Third. A uniform deposit system, with uniform deposit receipts, shall be
adopted by the manufacturers, and the manufacturers will adopt rules and
regulations for enforcing the prompt return of all deposits to employees en
titled thereto. The amount of deposit shall be $1.
Fourth. No work shall be given to or taken to employees to be performed at
their homes.
Fifth. In the future there shall be no time contracts with individual shop
employees, except foremen, designers, and pattern graders.
Sixth. The manufacturers will discipline any member thereof proven guilty
of unfair discrimination among his employees.
Seventh. Employees shall not be required to work during the 10 legal holi
days as established by the laws of the State of New York; and no employee

212

BULLETIN OE THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

shall be permitted to work more than 6 days in each week, those observing
Saturday to be permitted to work Sunday in lieu thereof; all week workers to
receive pay for legal holidays.
Eighth. The manufacturers will establish a regular weekly pay day and
they will pay for labor in cash, and each pieceworker will be paid for all
work delivered as soon as his work is inspected and approved, which shall be
within a reasonable time.
Ninth. All subcontracting within shops shall be abolished.
Tenth. The following schedule of the standard minimum weekly scale of
wages shall be observed:
Machine cutters_________________________________________________$25
Regular cutters------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
Canvas cutters-------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 12
Skirt cutters____________________________________________________ 21
Jacket pressers_________________________________________________ 21
Underpressers__________________________________________________ 18
Skirt pressers-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
Skirt underpressers_____________________________________________ 15
Part pressers___________________________________________________ 13
Reefer pressers_________________________________________________ 18
Refer underpressers----------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Sample makers--------------------------------------------Sample skirt makers---------------------------------------------------------------- 22
Skirt basters____________________________________________________ 14
Skirt finishers__________________________________________________ 10
Buttonhole makers, class A, a minimum of $1.25 per 100 buttonholes.
Class B, a minimum of 80 cents per 100 buttonholes.
As to piecework, the price to be paid is to be agreed upon by a committee of
the employees in each shop, and their employer. The chairman of said price
committee of the employees shall act as the representative of the employees in
their dealings with the employer.
The weekly hours of labor shall consist of 50 hours in 6 working days, to wit,
9 hours on all days except the sixth day, which shall consist of 5 hours only.
Eleventh. No overtime work shall be permitted between the 15th day of No
vember and the 15th day of January or during the months of June and July,
except upon samples.
Twelfth. No overtime work shall be permitted on Saturdays except to workers
not working on Saturdays, nor on any day for more than two and one-half hours,
nor before 8 a. m. nor after 8.30 p. m.
Thirteenth. For overtime work all week workers shall receive double the
usual pay.
Fourteenth. Each member of the manufacturers is to maintain a union shop,
a “ union shop ” being understood to refer to a shop where union standards as
to working conditions, hours of labor, and rates of wages as herein stipulated
prevail, and where, when hiring help, union men are preferred, it being recog
nized that, since there are differences in degrees of skill among those employed
in the trade, employers shall have freedom of selection as between one union
man and another, and shall not be confined to any list, nor bound to follow any
prescribed order whatever.
It is further understood that all existing agreements and obligations of the
employer, including those to present employees, shall be respected; the manu
facturers, however, declare their belief in the union, and that all who desire its
benefits should share in its burdens.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

213

Fifteenth. The parties hereby establish a Joint Board of Sanitary Control, to
consist of seven members, composed of two nominees of the manufacturers, two
nominees of the unions, and three who are to represent the public, the latter to
be named by Meyer London, Esq., and Julius Henry Cohen, Esq., and, in the
event of their inability to agree, by Louis Marshall, Esq.
Said board is empowered to establish standards of sanitary conditions, to
which the manufacturers and the unions shall be committed, and the manu
facturers and the unions obligate themselves to maintain such standards to the
best of their ability and to the full extent of their power.
Sixteenth. The parties hereby establish a Board of Arbitration to consist of
three members, composed of one nominee of the manufacturers, one nominee of
the unions, and one representative of the public, the latter to be named by Meyer
London, Esq., and Julius Henry Cohen, Esq., and, in the event of their inability
to agree, by Louis Marshall, Esq.
To such board shall be submitted any differences hereafter arising between the
parties hereto, or between any of the members of the manufacturers and any of
the members of the unions, and the decision of such Board of Arbitration shall
be accepted as final and conclusive between the parties to such controversy.
Seventeenth. In the event of any dispute arising between the manufacturers and
the unions, or between any members of the manufacturers and any members of
the unions, the parties to this Protocol agree that there shall be no strike or
lockout concerning such matters in controversy until full opportunity shall have
been given for the submission of such matters to said Board of Arbitration, and
in the event of a determination of said controversies by said Board of Arbitra
tion, only in the event of a failure to accede to the determination of said board.
Eighteenth. The parties hereby establish a Committee on Grievances, consist
ing of four members1 composed as follows: Two to be named by the manufac
turers and two by the unions. To said committee shall be submitted all minor
grievances arising in connection with the business relations between the manu
facturers and their employees.
Nineteenth. In the event of any vacancy in the aforesaid boards or in the
aforesaid committee, by reason of death, resignation, or disability of any of the
members thereof, such vacancy in respect to any appointee by the manufacturers
and unions, respectively, shall be filled by the body originally designating the
person with respect to whom such vacancy shall occur. In the event that such
vacancy shall occur among the representatives of the public on such boards,
such vacancy shall be filled by the remaining members representing the public
in the case of the Board of Sanitary Control, and in the case of the Board of
Arbitration both parties shall agree on a third arbitrator, and in case of their
inability to agree, said arbitrator shall be selected by the governor of the State
of New York.

PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT,

The Manufacturers’ Protective Association at the time of the sign
ing of the Protocol had 123 firms, with 15,000 employees. By Febru
ary 15, 1912, the number had increased to 196 firms, with 24,000
people.
The unions in September, 1910, had a membership of approxi
mately 40,000. In February, 1912, the membership had increased to
50,000 people. These included practically all the workers in the trade
in New York City.
1T h is

n u m b e r w a s l a t e r in c r e a s e d t o 1 0 m e m b e r s , 5 o n e a c h s id e .

See p . 2 1 9 .

214

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

The number of establishments and the number of employees under
Protocol agreements, under contract-shop agreements, and independent
of any agreement, on February 15, 1912, are shown in the following
table:
C O N D IT IO N S

O F

U N D ER

E M P LO Y M EN T
P R O T O C O L

FEB R U A R Y

15 ,

19 12 .

A G R EE M E N T S .

N u m b e r of
e s ta b lis h
m e n ts .

Num ber
e m p lo y e d .

M a n u fa c tu r e r s ’ P r o t e c t i v e A s s o c ia tio n ..............................................................................................................................
S u b c o n tr a c to r s re g is te re d u n d e r t h e P r o t o c o l............................................................................................................

196
270

2 4 ,0 0 0
6 ,0 0 0

T o t a l .................................................................................................................................................................................................................

466

30 ,000

U n i t e d A s s o c ia tio n o f M a n u f a c tu r e r s ....................................................................................................................................
In d e p e n d e n t m a n u fa c tu r e r s ...............................................................................................................................................................
A l t e r a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t s i n r e ta il s to re s ...............................................................................................................................

250
680
400

10 ,0 0 0
7.0 0 0
2 .0 0 0

1 ,3 3 0

19 ,0 0 0

1 ,0 0 0

U n d e r p r o to c o l c o n d it io n s ....................................................................................................................................................................
U n d e r c o n tra c t-s h o p c o n d it io n s ..................................................................................................................................................
U n d e r in d e p e n d e n t c o n d it io n s ............................................- .......................................................................................................

466
1 ,3 3 0
33

3 0 .0 0 0
19 .0 0 0
1 ,0 0 0

1 ,8 2 9

50,0 0 0

U N D ER

C O N T R A C T -S H O P

IN D E P E N D E N T

O P

A N Y

A G R EE M E N T S .

A G R E E M E N T .

I n d e p e n d e n t c o n tra c to rs a n d m a n u fa c tu r e r s ..............................................................................................................

T O T A L .

The manufacturers are represented in the machinery of the agree
ment through the Executive Board of the Association. This board
elects the five members1 on the Board of Grievances and a clerk.
The board also elects two representatives to the Joint Board of Sani
tary Control and one member of the Board of Arbitration, and des
ignates counsel to represent them before the Board of Arbitration
when necessary.
The employees are represented in the machinery through the Joint
Board of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Unions, which consists of five
members from each of the following unions: Cloak operators, cloak
and suit tailors, garment cutters, skirt makers, reefer makers, skirt
pressers, and buttonhole makers. These members are elected by the
respective locals for one year. They are unpaid and correspond to
the Executive Board of the Association. This joint board elects the
five members1 on the Board of Grievances and a clerk, and it also
elects two representatives to the Joint Board of Sanitary Control and
aThe number was fixed at two in the Protocol, but was later changed to five. See
page 219.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

215

one member of the Board of Arbitration, and designates counsel to
represent it before the Board of Arbitration when necessary.
The Joint Board of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Unions virtually
controls the entire cloak and suit trade in the city, representing at
the present time unions with not less than 50,000 members in good
standing.
The work of this joint board, in so far as it affects the Protocol,
is complicated by the fact that not all the workmen in the trade
are under the control of the Protocol. This board legislates and
determines the policy of all nonassociation shops, for the reason that
the unions have individual contracts with such shops.
In all matters affecting the conditions of the men who work in
association shops the action of the joint board is not final. A change
in the conditions (other than provided in the Protocol) can be made
only by an agreement arrived at through a joint conference between
the representatives chosen by the joint board and the Executive
Board of the Association.
The unique feature of the Protocol is the fact that it was not in
tended as a temporary agreement, hut as a permanent treaty, designed
to avert violent contests between the manufacturers and workers for
all time.
PREFERENTIAL UNION SHOP.

In considering the parties to the agreement and the agencies of its
enforcement, it is important to understand the position of the union.
The agreement between the employers and employees is based on the
preferential union shop ” principles. The fourteenth section reads
as follows:

Each member of the manufacturers is to maintain a union shop, a “ union
shop ” being understood to refer to a shop where union standards as to working
conditions, hours of labor, and rates of wages as herein stipulated prevail, and
where, when hiring help, union men are preferred; it being recognized that,
since there are differences in degrees of skill among those employed in the trade,
{employers shall have freedom of selection as between one union man and an
other, and shall not be confined to any list nor bound to follow any prescribed
order whatever.
It is further understood that all existing agreements and obligations of the
employer, including those to present employees, shall be respected; the manu
facturers, however, declare their belief in the union, and that all who desire
its benefits should share in its burdens.

The basic assumption of the preferential union shop then is that
for the good of the industry and in order to meet the requirements
which it is believed should obtain under modern conditions in an
industry of this kind union standards should be maintained as to
hours of labor, rates of wages, and sanitary conditions, and that this
in turn involves the necessity of a strong union. In exactly the same

216

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

way it involves the existence of an association of employers. It,
furthermore, implies cooperation in good faith between the union
and the association of employers, it being held that through the co
operation in good faith of the employers and employees standards
of conditions of work and wages can be maintained.
The preferential union shop then guarantees for the workmen
the existence of the union, since the employees would not hesitate to
become members of the union when the manufacturer openly declares,
and acts on his belief, that he prefers a union man in return for the
responsibilities which the union assumes in controlling and disciplin
ing the men in his employ. Formerly the spirit prevailing in a shop
sometimes made it impossible for an employer to control his men
without risking the serious loss involved in a strike or lockout, but
now under such circumstances the union is bound to maintain order.
In actual practice the workings of the preferential union shop
involved the solution of certain specific problems:
(1) The retention of nonunion men already employed.
(2) The method of engaging employees, and the question of the
retention of future nonunion employees.
(3) The manner of dealing with employees who decline to become
members of the union.
(4) The manner of dealing with union men who neglect to pay dues.
In regard to (1), paragraph 2 of the fourteenth section provides
“ that all existing agreements and obligations of the employer, includ
ing those to present employees, shall be respected.” This was made
necessary on account of contracts made prior to the strike which the
employer had to keep inviolate; but at the expiration of the contracts
the employees became members of the unions.
In regard to (2), the problem is solved in the following way:
As the manufacturer has obligated himself to the preference of union
men, the method works out automatically, inasmuch as the union sees
to it that the supply of union men is almost never exhausted. How
ever, it sometimes occurs that no union man is to be had and the
employer hires a nonunion man, and in such cases, if the nonunion
man desires to secure for himself the same rights under the Protocol
as the union men in the shop, he joins the union; the union must
accept him if he applies in good faith. It is the essence of the prefer
ential union shop that an opportunity to join the union shall not be
denied any man in the trade upon the payment of a reasonable initia
tion fee and dues.
If, after opportunity is afforded to the nonunion man so employed
to join the union, he declines or fails to do so, he takes the risk of
discharge before union men of equal skill are discharged, as the
employer must in good faith give the preference, in retaining as well
as in hiring, to union men, skill being equal.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

217

The preferential union shop then affords the nonunion man an
opportunity to secure employment, but the union is strengthened
through the system of preference in employment given to its mem
bers. Thus, the man who joins the union insures for himself pref
erence in employment.
Although no case has yet arisen, some of the manufacturers express
the belief that under this clause of the Protocol they would have the
right to select a nonunion man in preference to a union man on the
basis of superior skill, even if both men were qualified workmen.
The question of the preferential union shop in so far as it affects
the engaging of new help has thus far not led to conflict. In other
words, in every instance the newly-engaged employee has either joined
the union or left the employ of the firm.
In regard to (3), the right of the manufacturer to retain in his
employ workmen who decline to become members of the union is
conceded; such exception, however, is confined to very old or super
annuated employees or to members of the employer’s family.
As to (4), in the matter of the neglect of the men to pay their
dues, the preferential union shop works out in the following way:
After a man has been in arrears for some time, the union files a
technical complaint that the firm is preferring nonunion men. The
joint investigation discloses the true state of affairs, and the manu
facturer uses his best efforts to have the man pay his dues. In ques
tions of this kind, the representative of the association or the firm
helps in an arrangement by which the arrears are paid up in install
ments. At the time this arrangement is in progress, no effort is made
to justify or excuse the man for falling in arrears unless there be
exceptional circumstances. On the contrary, even the representative
of the association impresses upon the man the fact that payment of
dues to his organization is a responsibility which he must meet, and
for the shirking of which the employer will not protect him, since
the Protocol states that all who desire the benefits of the union should
share in its burdens.
LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROTOCOL UPON THE MANUFAC
TURER.

1. He obligates himself to employ union men by preference, as
long as he is not restricted in the selection of the best available union
help.
2. He is pledged to pay the scale of wages adopted for the week
workers in the trade.
3. He can not oblige the men to work until the piece price to be
paid is agreed upon by the manufacturer and a committee of em
ployees.
31326°—Bull. 98—12-----15

218

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

4. He is pledged to accept the decision of the Board of Grievances
or the Board of Arbitration upon any complaint made by his em
ployees.
LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROTOCOL UPON THE UNIONS.

1. There must be an open union; admission to the labor organiza
tions must be free to all qualified without any discrimination.
2. The right to strike is given up as long as the Protocol is in force.
3. The employees must accept the decision of the Board of Griev
ances or the Board of Arbitration as final.
AGENCIES OF THE PROTOCOL.

The Protocol attempted to establish efficient agencies for the
orderly adjustment of all disputes which might arise between the
employers and employees, without cessation of work or other serious
business disturbances in the trade. The agencies so established are
a Board of Grievances (first established as a Committee of Griev
ances) and a Board of Arbitration.
The Board of Grievances consists of 10 members,1 5 represent
ing each side signing the Protocol. This board is, at least poten
tially, by far the most vital instrument operating under the Protocol.
All complaints, grievances, and misunderstandings arising between the
cloak manufacturers organized in the association and their employees
are finally submitted to this board.
BOARD OF GRIEVANCES.
PLAN AND SCOPE OP WORK.

The Board of Grievances (originally Committee on Grievances) is
essentially a trade court, and since it is composed of ah equal num
ber of members representing each side, occasions may arise in which
the court may be equally divided, and thus fail of a decision. To
prevent such deadlocks, and also to provide for a tribunal to pass
upon disputed questions of interpretation of the provisions of the
Protocol and the more general and important controversies between
the parties to it, a Board of Arbitration was created. The Board of
Arbitration consists of one nominee of the manufacturers, one nomi
nee of the unions, and one representative of the public.
The Grievance Committee established by the Protocol was largely
an experiment. The Protocol was very meager on the question of
the jurisdiction of the committee, and wholly failed to provide proper
rules for its procedure. The Grievance Committee thus had to
Evolve its own methods in the light of its experience and the exi
gencies of the situation as they arose from time to time. A few
months after the organization of the committee, it was found neces
1 T h i s n u m b e r w a s fix e d a t 4 in th e P r o t o c o l, b u t w a s l a t e r c h a n g e d t o 1 0 .

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YOKK CITY.

219

sary to increase the number of its members and to adopt certain rules
for the orderly hearing and disposition of complaints. Finally, it
was attempted to formulate a complete and comprehensive set of rules
of procedure for the committee, and, in that attempt, certain differ
ences of opinion developed between counsel for the two sides.
It was therefore agreed that these differences be submitted to the
Board of Arbitration to the end that definite rules and plans of pro
cedure be established.
Upon this subject the representatives of the parties to the Protocol
met and agreed upon a large number of proposed rules, among others,
increasing the number of members of the committee to 10, 5 repre
senting each side, and changing its name to “ Board of Grievances.” 1
The points upon which the parties failed to agree were submitted
to the Board of Arbitration for settlement.
One of the differences arose over a provision, urged by the unions,
which would in effect authorize the representatives of the unions upon
the Board of Grievances or other persons designated by them to inspect
shops even where no formal complaint had been lodged against the
employer, in order to ascertain whether the provisions of the Protocol
were being lived up to in such shops, and also in order to afford the
unions an opportunity to investigate informal complaints so as to
determine whether they should be brought before the Board of Griev
ances. It was urged on behalf of the unions that in the absence
of such a provision, complete justice could not be done the employees
for the reason that many of them would fail to present grievances
even if they were thoroughly justified, for fear of being disciplined
by the employer; and that, on the other hand, a preliminary inves
tigation on the part of the unions would obviate the necessity of
bringing before the Board of Grievances complaints of a trivial
nature. The Manufacturers’ Association objected on the ground that
frequent and arbitrary visits of union representatives might stimu
late fancied grievances, disturb shop routine, and cause friction
between the employers and employees. The Board of Arbitration?
recognizing the strength of the arguments on both sides, settled the
matter by the adoption of the following rule :

The clerks shall hold office for one year or until their successors are elected.1
Each clerk shall appoint as many deputy clerks as shall be required for the,
expeditious transaction of the business of the board.
1B o a rd
On

th e

o f G rie v a n c e s f o r y e a r o f 1 9 1 1 :
p a r t o f th e a s s o c ia t io n : L . E . R o s e n fe ld ,

M e ye r, R . S a d o w sk y.
E u g e n e L . L e z in s k y , c le rk .
A r t h u r J . G lu c k , d e p u ty c le rk s .

M ax

M .

S c liw a r c z , I .

S te rn ,

M ax

D r . P a u l A b e ls o n , G ilb e r t O . H o p p e r ,

O n t h e p a r t o f t h e u n i o n s : A . R o s e n b e r g , J o h n A . D y c h e , J . Z i m m e r m a n , B e n . S c h le s
S in g e r, J . E . F r u ie s e n .
S . P o la k o ff, c le rk .
L o u is K o s s a c h , W m . H o le n , S a lv a to r e N im fo ,
d e p u ty c le rk s .
A lte rn a te s o n th e p a r t o f th e a s s o c ia tio n : W m . F is c h m a n , A . E . L e fc o u r t , E . J . W ile .
D r . P a u l A b e ls o n a n d J . Z i m m e r m a n a c t a s r e c o r d in g c le r k s f o r t h e i r r e s p e c tiv e s id e s .

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

220

Upon the written request of any member of the Board of Grievances a com
mittee of two, consisting of members of the board or of clerks or of deputy
clerks, shall visit any shop for the purpose of ascertaining whether the pro
visions of the Protocol are being observed, and report on the conditions of such
shop to the board.
This provision to be adopted as Section IV of the rules and plan of procedure
of the Board of Grievances.

Another difference arose over the methods of securing speedy
action on the part of the Board of Grievances and effective execution
of its decrees. The Board of Arbitration settled this difference by
the adoption of Sections XVII, XVIII, and X IX of the rules and
plans of procedure of the Board of Grievances.
In addition to these provisions, and in conjunction therewith, the
Board of Arbitration adopted the following as a part of Section
XVIII:
All names of candidates for membership in the association shall be submitted
by the latter to the unions before the admission of such candidates, in order
to afford the unions an opportunity to acquaint the association with the records
of such candidates in respect to the condition of their factories and their
treatment of employees.

As finally adopted the rules and plan of procedure of the Board
of Grievances are as follows:
R ules

and

P lan

P r o c ed u r e A do pted

by the

B oar d

G r ie v a n c e s .

For brevity, the Manufacturers’ Association is herein referred to as the
“ manufacturers,” the local unions and joint board are referred to as the
“ unions,” and where both parties are meant they are referred to as the
“ parties.”
t h e bo ar d o f g r ie v a n c e s .

I. Immediately upon the adoption of these rules and plan of procedure, the
members of the Grievance Committee, appointed pursuant to the Protocol of
Peace, shall constitute themselves into a board, and shall thereafter be known
as “ The Board of Grievances.”
Hereafter in these rules it will be referred to as the “ board.”
II. The board shall immediately elect two chairmen, one from each side, who
shall preside alternately, for two weeks.
TERM OF OFFICE.

III. These officers shall hold office for one year, or until their successors are
elected.
OFFICE OF CLERKS.IV.

IV. The clerks shall hold office for one year or until their successors are
elected. Each clerk shall appoint as many deputy clerks as shall be required for
the expeditious transaction of the business of the board.
Upon the written request of any member of the Board of Grievances a cornmil tee of two, consisting of members of the board or of clerks or of deputy clerks,
one representing each side, shall visit any shop for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the provisions of the Protocol are being observed, and report on the
conditions of such shop to the board.
V. A chairman shall preside at all meetings.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

221

QUORUM.

VI. The board shall consist of five members from each side. Three members
from each party (the manufacturers and the unions) shall constitute a quorum
of the board.
REGULAR MEETINGS.

VII. The board shall meet regularly at designated and appointed times and
places once a week. Meetings may be postponed by mutual consent and records
of such postponement shall be recorded on the minutes.
SPECIAL MEETINGS.

VIII. Special meetings of the board shall be called only in case of emergency,
or where prompt or immediate action is necessary, and may be called by the
chairman of either side.
CALENDAR.

IX. The board shall have a regular calendar at each regular meeting. The
clerks shall prepare a calendar of cases to be disposed of, and such cases shall
be disposed of in regular order, unless special rules be made by the board.
ORDER OF TRIAL.

X. Cases shall be placed upon the calendar in the order in which they are
received, i. e., in the order of the date of the filing of the complaints.
TRIALS AND HEARINGS.

XI. No case shall be taken up by the board until a complaint is filed in
writing. As soon as a complaint is filed the clerks or their deputies shall
make every effort to adjust the controversies. If the clerks agree their decision
shall be binding on both parties, but either party has the right to appeal to
the board if dissatisfied with the decision of the clerks. If the clerks fail to
agree on a verdict, the complaint, together with the reports of the clerks, setting
forth their findings as to the facts, shall be presented at the next meeting of
the board. If the reports of the clerks agree, the board shall then dispose of
the matter. If issues are raised by the two reports, the case shall be placed
upon the calendar for trial and the issues shall be the issues thus raised by
the reports of the clerks. At the time of trial both sides shall be heard and
both parties shall offer their proofs, and the board shall receive and consider
them. The board shall refer disputed questions of fact to any subcommittee
of the board, equally constituted from both parties, who shall report their de
cisions in writing to the board. If both parties agree the decision shall be
final; but in case any question of principle is involved in the decision, the
party deeming itself aggrieved may take an appeal to the Board of Grievances,
which appeal shall be heard by the Board of Grievances, as any other matter
presented to them.
DECISIONS.

XII. A majority vote shall be necessary to a decision. Both sides shall have
an equal number of votes. In the event of a failure to arrive at such decision,
the issues undecided shall be immediately framed and presented to the Board
of Arbitration, as hereinafter provided.

222

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.
ORDERS AND ENTRIES OF DECISIONS.

XIII. All decisions of the board shall be reduced to writing and orders
thereon shall be entered by the clerks.
The filing of an order with the clerks shall constitute notice to each party.
DUPLICATE RECORDS.

XIV. All records of the board shall be kept in duplicate by the clerks, one
to be filed with the manufacturers and one to be filed with the unions.
SANITARY MATTERS.

XV. The board will not consider any grievances relating to sanitary condi
tions. These should be addressed to the Board of Sanitary Control.
WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEE OR DISCRIMINATION.

XVI. If the grievance arises because of the wrongful discharge of an em
ployee or because of discrimination on the part of the employer, the finding of
the board in favor of the employee shall entitle him to back pay in full during
the period of his nonemployment pending hearing and determination of the
grievance.
SHOP STRIKE, LOCKOUT, OR GENERAL REFUSAL TO WORK.

XVII. If a grievance arises because of the general stoppage of work of a
shop or department of a shop, either by direction of the employer or because
of or by the concurrent action of the employees, upon complaint received, the
clerks or their deputies Shall immediately proceed to the shop or department
where the trouble occurs. If the employer is responsible for the stoppage, he
shall, upon the demand of the clerks or their deputies, immediately recall all
his employees pending the adjustment by the board of any grievance he may
have, and he shall thereupon frame and present his grievance. If the em
ployees are responsible for the stoppage, notice shall be immediately given to
them to return to wrork pending adjustment of the grievance by the board, and
the chairman of the price committee shall immediately direct them to return
to work.
VIOLATION OF SECTION XVII OF THE PEACE PROTOCOL.

XVIII. A violation of the provisions of Section XVII of these rules or of
Section XVII of the Protocol by either employer or employee shall constitute a
grievance to be presented to the Board of Grievances. If, after hearing, the
board finds the defendant guilty, the order of the board shall be made the
basis of prompt discipline in the association or the unions, as the case may be.
Such discipline shall consist of a suitable fine or expulsion. The action so
taken shall forthwith be reported in writing to the Board of Grievances.
All names of candidates for membership in the association shall be submitted
by the latter to the unions before the admission of such candidates in order
to afford such unions an opportunity to acquaint the association with the
records of such candidates in respect to the conditions of their factories and
their treatment of employees.
POSTING OF THESE NOTICES.

XIX. Copies of the three preceding paragraphs and of Section XVII of the
Protocol in English and translations thereof in Italian and Yiddish shall be
posted in every shop of the manufacturers and in all the meeting rooms of the
unions immediately upon the adoption of this plan.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

223

MATTEBS FOB THE BOABD OF ARBITRATION.

XX. (a) If the Board of Grievances shall find, after the hearing of any case
before it, that it can not arrive at a decision in accordance with the rules herein
provided, it shall immediately request the Board of Arbitration to convene and
hear the case. Wherever practicable it shall reduce the issue to an agreed
statement of facts or prepare and submit for decision specified questions. So
far as practicable it shall relieve the Board of Arbitration of the necessity of
taking testimony upon the disputed questions of fact.
GENERAL ABUSES OB GRIEVANCES.

(ft) If the Board of Grievances shall find any general grievance or abuse
which either party has failed, after due opportunity, to correct, or if either
party fails adequately to discipline members found guilty by the Board of
Grievances, such matters may be presented by the party aggrieved to the
Board of Arbitration for redress, either through its counsel or through its
officers, and the hearings thereon shall be public.
CONFERENCE OF BOTH PARTIES CALLED BY THE BOARD OF GRIEVANCES.

XXI. Whenever, in the opinion of the Board of Grievances, a general situa
tion arises requiring adjustment by both organizations, or revision or amend
ments of the Protocol, it shall call a conference of both organizations by duly
authorized representatives to consider and discuss such matters. If such
conference fails to agree, the situation shall be presented to the Board of Arbi
tration for adjustment, pursuant to the terms of the Protocol.
VIOLATIONS OF THESE RULES.

XXII. Failure to observe any of the provisions of this plan and rules shall
constitute a grievance to be tried before the board.
COMPLAINT TO THE BOARD OF ARBITRATION.

XXIII. Failure to respond in due course to any notice given by the clerks
shall constitute a grievance to be tried before this board. Repeated violations
shall be the basis of complaint to the Board of Arbitration.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS OF THIS BOARD.

XXIV. Failure to comply with any decision or order of the board shall con
stitute a grievance against the party to be presented to the Board of Arbitra
tion.
NEGLECT OF DUTY ON THE PART OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

XXV. Neglect of duty on the part of any member on the board shall be a
grievance to be presented to the Board of Arbitration.
DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS.

XXVI. No member of the board interested in a case shall sit in review
thereof.

224

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.
FAILURE TO ATTEND MEETING OR REFUSAL TO VOTE.

XXVII. Any member of the board failing to attend a meeting of the board
or refusing to vote in a case heard by him, shall furnish such explanation, or
in case it shall be deemed inadequate by either party, the matter may be pre
sented to the Board of Arbitration by the aggrieved party, either through its
counsel or through its officers.
APPEALS.

XXVIII. Either party deeming itself aggrieved may appeal to the Board of
Arbitration from any order or decision made by the Board of Grievances, upon
giving notice thereof to the clerks within 30 days after the service of a copy
of such order or decision.
ORDER OF BUSINESS.

XXIX. Until further revised, the order of business of the board shall be as
follows:
1. Report of clerks on adjusted matters.
2. New complaints.
3. Old complaints adjourned for answer.
4. Trials of issue presented.
5. Matters for the Board of Arbitration.
6. Matters for conference.
MACHINERY OF THE BOARD OF GRIEVANCES.

On the side of the unions, the machinery of the Board of Griev
ances consists of five members and a clerk, named by the Joint Board
of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Unions. The investigating force of
deputy clerks of the Board of Grievances on the union side are not
elected by the joint board; they are chosen for six months by a
general election of the entire membership of the unions.
The scheme is as follows: Each one of the local unions nominates
candidates. These candidates are subjected to an examination by a
committee of the joint board. An eligible list is prepared on which
the applicants are rated “ a,” “ b,” “ c,” and “ d,” according to their
ability and experience. A general ballot with the names arranged
under their respective ratings is then prepared, from which the
members of the unions voting in different halls, arranged according
to convenient localities, select 30 business agents for the entire trade.
The Joint Board of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Unions selects
from these 30 business agents a corps of 4 or 5 who, with a district
manager chosen from among the staff of elected business agents, con
stitute the clerk and deputy clerks of the Board of Grievances rep
resenting the unions. Sometimes this district manager or clerk is
designated by the joint board although he was not elected by the
union.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTBY IN NEW YOKK CITY.

225

On the side of the Manufacturers’ Association, the machinery of
the Board of Grievances consists of five members and a clerk chosen
by the Executive Board of the Association. The investigating force
of five deputy clerks is appointed by the clerk.
The records of the Board of Grievances are technically kept by
two secretaries, one representing the unions and one the associa
tion. In practice a deputy clerk of the association acts as secretary
of the Board of Grievances. He prepares the calendar for the
Board of Grievances, and his minutes are submitted for acceptance
to the secretary representing the unions.
The calendar of the Board of Grievances consists of the following:
1. Reports of clerks on adjusted matters.
la. Cases off the calendar for lack of jurisdiction.
2. New complaints investigated by clerks to be acted upon by the
Board of Grievances. (Cases of disagreement.)
3. Old complaints adjourned for answer. (Cases laid over or
cases assigned to a special committee.)
4. Reports of disciplinary actions by respective organizations.
5. Cases uninvestigated or in process of investigation.
Each shop represents a unit in the unions. The employees of the
shop elect the shop chairman and the price committee. In cases under
investigation representatives of the unions may enter the shop for
purposes of investigation only when accompanied by a member of
the association staff of investigators.
METHOD OE PROCEDURE IN ADJUSTING DISPUTES.

When the workmen in a shop formulate a grievance against the
employer the elected representative of the men in the shop, known as
the shop chairman, presents this grievance to the firm or its repre
sentative in charge of the factory. In many cases the dispute is
adjusted then and there.
Sometimes the firm fails to meet the demand of the employees as
voiced by the shop chairman, claiming that the action complained
of does not constitute a violation of the Protocol or the rules of the
Board -of Grievances, or the men may feel that in seeking redress
for this particular grievance they wish to have the support of their
unions in the contention. In such situations the men inform the unions
of their grievance. A complaint is then filed in the office of the
Manufacturers’ Association, stating the grievance in specific terms.
When this complaint appears to be a definitely established point
on which the Board of Grievances has already ruled, the manufac
turer is informed by letter by the office of the Manufacturers’ Asso
ciation that the complaint filed by the unions is well founded, and

226

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

the firm is instructed to comply with the decision of the Board of
Grievances which covers this particular case.
When the complaint is not based on the claim of a definite or
established rule, but involves a dispute of facts or interpretation of
the same, then a representative of the association and a representa
tive of the unions, acting in the capacity of clerks or deputy clerks
of the Grievance Board, as the case may be, call upon the firm and
present the grievance as it is formulated in the written complaint.
A similar procedure is followed in case a manufacturer finds that
the men refuse to do certain things because they claim that they
are within their rights to refuse the request of the manufacturer. In
this case he files a complaint with the association. The association,
in turn, files a complaint with the unions. It is understood, of course,
that this procedure is not necessary in the case of a dispute between
the manufacturer and an individual workman. The right of dis
charge is restricted only by the right of the workman to file a griev
ance if he thinks he was unjustly discriminated against. Such mat
ter becomes a subject for investigation and adjustment.
After complaints are filed a docket is prepared, in which the cases
are numbered and analyzed. By mutual agreement, cases of pressing
importance are taken up first; but a charge of “ stoppage of work”
or “ lockout ” takes precedence. Next in order of importance are
cases where delay would entail a monetary loss to the manufacturer.
When the representatives of the unions and the association take up
this matter with the firm, they act in a threefold capacity—first, as
representatives of the Board of Grievances they expound its rules
and regulations; second, as representatives respectively of employer
and employee they voice the position of the respective sides on the
question in dispute; third, they act in the capacity of mediators, their
underlying motive being to adjust the difficulty in this particular
case and, at the same time, to establish a permanent feeling of peace
and harmony, on the basis of the Protocol, in that particular shop.
At the time the clerks take up this matter with the firm, the shop
chairman, or representative of the men in the shop, is present, and
sometimes also the committee which negotiates prices on piecework.
The firm and the men present their respective sides of the question
to the representatives of the Grievance Board.
It is a standing rule of the Board of Grievances that, at the time
of the investigation, all facts, either directly or indirectly relevant
to the dispute, must be presented. If necessary, an investigation of
the shop can be made to ascertain the facts, and employees and the
representatives of the firm may be called upon to testify.
On the basis of the facts thus brought out, the clerks then and
there render a decision either in favor of the firm or in favor of the

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

227

union, or the matter is adjusted by mutual agreement. In some cases,
the dispute is dropped entirely.
When the clerks have thus rendered their decision, the firm and the
employees have the right to appeal from that decision to the Board of
Grievances. In actual practice, such appeal has very rarely been
taken—the records show only 2 cases out of 1,418—one appeal being
taken by each side.
These decisions are made a matter of record, in duplicate form,
with a short abstract of the facts developed at the time of the in
vestigation.
In accordance with the rules of the Board of Grievances, all
cases adjudicated in the above manner are reported to the Board of
Grievances as “ adjusted cases.” By mutual consent of the members
of the Board of Grievances, any one of these cases may be reopened.
In cases where the representatives of the Board of Grievances fail
to agree on a decision immediately, they defer the decision pending
an informal discussion concerning the merits of the case and the
principles involved, and render a decision subsequently. If, after
further consideration, the representatives of the Board of Grievances
still fail to agree on a decision, the matter is referred to the Board
of Grievances for action and decision.
When such cases are referred to the Board of Grievances, a joint re
port of the established facts is made, together with written statements
by the respective sides of the reasons for the disagreement. The case
is then discussed by the members of the Board of Grievances, and,
after argument, a decision is rendered, or the Board of Grievances
refers the case for further investigation to the clerks of the Grievance
Board or to a special committee designated for the purpose. In such
instances, special reports on the disposition of the case, if an adjust
ment is reached, are made to the Board of Grievances at the next
session.
Inasmuch as the question of “ settling prices ” is the most vitally
important matter with which either side has to deal, it becomes
interesting to know what actually happens in the event of a failure
to agree.
The tenth section of the Protocol reads in part as follows: “As to
piecework, the price to be paid is to be agreed upon by a committee of
the employees in each shop, and their employer. The chairman of
said price committee of the employees shall act as the representative
of the employees in their dealings with the employer.”
As above stated, the prices to be paid for piecework must be agreed
upon by the price committee and the employer. The records show
that there were 141 complaints during the first year in regard to
fixing prices, or where the employer and the employees could not

228

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

agree upon a final adjustment. In a complaint of this kind, the
method pursued by the deputy clerks of the Board of Grievances
{one representing the employers and one representing the employees)
is to bring the contending parties together immediately, usually at
the office of the employer, and have them submit their differences.
In such cases the deputy clerks act as experts for their respective
sides.
Both employer and employees are given every opportunity of pre
senting evidence in support of their contentions as to the actual
practice and processes of making similar garments and with modi
fications or additions, as the case may be, or with the possible cost of
producing extreme styles or models. It, of course, must be under
stood that the actual basis for a comparison must be made in the
light of the cost of making the “ sample ” shown by the “ sample
maker,” plus past experience.
After the testimony has been submitted to the deputy clerks of the
board they render their decision, fixing the prices then and there,
such decisions rarely if ever being questioned or taken to the Board of
Grievances. The prices so fixed are the prices for the entire season.
Violations of the scale of prices on the part of the employer are sub
ject to discipline by the Manufacturers’ Protective Association and
on the part of the employees by the unions.
Following are the rules agreed upon by the Manufacturers’ Asso
ciation and the unions for the guidance of the chairman of the price
committee:
I n s t r u c t io n s

C h a ir m a n

P rice C o m m it t e e .

1. The duty of the chairman of the price committee is to be tactful and
polite under all circumstances, whether dealing with the employer or with his
fellow employees. He is to avoid all unnecessary discussions.
2. The chairman is to notify every new employee that the shop is a union
shop, and that every employee is expected to join the union.
3. Pieceworkers shall not be obliged to make any new garments until the
price committee and the employer have adjusted the price on such garment.
4. No work shall be made by the employee outside of the factory, and the
hours of labor and the scale of wages shall be strictly observed. The hours
are from 8 a. m. to 12 m., 1 to 6 p. m., and on Saturday from 8 a. m. to 1 p. m.
5. The employers shall determine what departments will work overtime and
designate the evenings best suited.
6. It shall be the duty of the said chairman of the price committee to report
all grievances to the employer for adjustment.
7. Grievances which can not be adjusted with the employer must be pre
sented to the union, which will in turn present them to the Joint Grievance
Committee, as per paragraph 18 of the Protocol.
8. It is the duty of the said chairman to see that none of the workmen
shall stop work pending the adjustment of grievances.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

229

9. No shop meetings can be called except by order of the union, and firms
are to receive 24 hours’ notice to that effect, excepting the months beginning
the 15th day of November until the 15th day of January, May, June, and July.
10. Week employees can not leave their employment except at the expiration
of their week. Pieceworkers must finish their work before leaving.
The above rules have been agreed upon between the members of the Cloak,
Suit, and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association and the Cloak and Skirt
Makers’ Unions of Greater New York.

The method of “ settling prices,” in so far as pieceworkers were
concerned, that prevailed prior to the general strike in 1910 was a
cause of constant friction. It was customary at the beginning of
each season for the employers to attempt to establish piece rates
for the cost of production on each garment, oftentimes regardless
of protests on the part of the employees that the rates so fixed would
not permit them to earn an adequate wage. Thus the wage rates
which were considered as having been “ absolutely dictated ” by the
employer were fixed for a period of about four weeks. During this
time (which is considered the slow season) the employer took advan
tage of his opportunity to fill as many orders as he could possibly
obtain. At the expiration of this time, however, or when the season
was approaching its height, conditions became reversed. Previous
to this time the employees were at the mercy of the employers, but
during the height of the season the employer was at the mercy of his
employees.
The employees, whenever their collective strength warranted, im
mediately presented the employer with an option of raising wage
rates to their standard or of facing a strike. It was not unusual for
the employers to be obliged to resist an attempt to raise prices under
the threat of strikes three or four times during the height of the
season. Indeed, sometimes the strikes came before the threat and
even without warning, and at other times the employers were con
fronted with both.
However, at the expiration of the busy season, or at th6 approach of
what is known as the slack season, conditions again changed; wage
rates were reduced from 20 to 25 per cent by the employers and
usually half the working force was laid off.
This method constantly put the employers of the better class at a
disadvantage, for the reason that in many cases the small manu
facturer worked his employees from 60 to 70 hours per week; kept
his overhead charges at the minimum by the use of foot power in
stead of electric or other power; paid less for labor and kept an everchanging force of employees, so that they were always without
leadership. By these means the unscrupulous employers were able to
undersell the legitimate manufacturers.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

230

The claim is made that for a period of from five to six weeks at
the height of the season, under the old conditions, the employees
were able to earn much more than they are now getting during a
similar period.
So far as wages are concerned the advantages under the Protocol
over the old scheme are that the manufacturers know at the begin
ning of the season what prices they will have to pay for labor on
each and every garment for the entire season. In addition, the
unions have used every effort to equalize conditions in small estab
lishments to the advantage of all concerned.
CASES OF GRIEVANCES, DECEMBER 12, 1910, TO SEPTEMBER 11, 1911.

Out of a total of 1,101 grievances which came before the staff of
the Board of Grievances during a period of nine months, beginning
December 12, 1910, and ending September 11, 1911, 998 complaints
were made by the union and 103 by the association. These 1,101
grievances may be divided into 21 classifications. An analysis of
these cases shows that 66.8 per cent, or 735 cases, are included in the
first 7 classifications.
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF GRIEVANCES COMPLAINED OF BY UNION AND AS
SOCIATION WHICH CAME BEFORE THE STAFF OF BOARD OF GRIEVANCES, DE
CEMBER 12,1910, TO SEPTEMBER l l r 1911, ACCORDING TO CLASS OF GRIEVANCE.
Complaints made.
Classification o! grievances.
1. Alleged unjustifiable discharge............................. ...............................
2. Discrimination and unequal distribution of work...............................
3. Dispute in fixing prices..........................................................................
4. Claim for wages due...............................................................................
5. Paying under scale of wages..................................................................
6 . Working on garments when price is unsettled.....................................
7. Cessation of work....................................................................................
8 . Enforced competition between pieceworkers and week workers.......
9 . Interference with conduct of and discipline in factory......................
10. Non-Protocol conditions in outside shops............................................
11. Nonpayment for holidays......................................................................
12. Hours of labor and overtime..................................................................
13. Discrimination in distribution of work in favor of outside shops__
14. Forced reduction of settled prices..........................................................
15. Fixing amount of deduction from wages for damaged garments........
16. Inside contract system...........................................................................
17. Failure to install electric power............................................................
18. Delay in complying with terms of adjustments..................................
19. Abusive treatment of employees...........................................................
20. Discrimination in distribution of work against outside shops............
2 1 . Miscellaneous...........................................................................................
Non-Protocol cases........................................................................................
T o ta l

Per
By Byasso
of
union. ciation. Total. cent
to ta l.
176
160
116
82
70
43
35
35
22
18
17
13
12
11
10
9
8
51
42
S98

4
59
40

176
160
82
70
68
59
43
40
35
35
22
18
17
13

120

12
11
10

103

16.0
14.5
10.9
7.4
6 4
6.2
5.4
3.9
3.2
3.2

2.0
1.6

1.0

98
51
42

4.6
3.8

1 ,1 0 1

100.0

The largest number of complaints under a single classification arose
from alleged unjustifiable discharge, but other causes were responsible
for larger numbers of complaints, grouped under different headings.
Thus, discrimination in the distribution of work (classifications 2,13,

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

231

and 20) accounts for 186 grievances, while disputes relating to the
wage scale or its violation (classifications 3, 5, 6, and 14) caused 271
complaints from the workers and 4 from the employers. Withhold
ing money the worker believed due him (classifications 4, 11, and 15)
gave rise to 130 complaints, but hours of labor and overtime was a
noticeably unimportant cause, only 2 per cent of the whole number of
grievances being due to it. From the standpoint of the employers a
cessation of work—in effect a strike—and interference with the dis
cipline of the factory were the important causes, accounting for 99
out of 103 grievances, or 96.1 per cent.
Over three-fourths of all the cases disposed of were adjusted by
the deputy clerks of the Board of Grievances without being carried
to the board itself. Only four cases ivere carried up to the court of
final appeal, the Board of Arbitration. The means of adjustment of
1,004 of the 1,101 cases brought up between December 12, 1910, and
September 11, 1911, are shown in the following table:
MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT OF GRIEVANCES, DECEMBER 12, 1910, TO SEPTEMBER
1 1 , 1 91 1.
Means of adjustment.
By the Board of Arbitration.............................................................................................
By the Board of Grievances..............................................................................................
By the deputy clerks of Board of Grievances..................................................................
Total cases disposed of.............................................................................................
Pending September 11......................... . ..........................................................................
Non-Protocol cases............................................................................................................
Grand total.........................................................................................................

Number. Per cent.
4
202
798
1,004
155
42

9.4
2 0 .1
79.5
1 0 0 .0 0

1 ,1 01

FINAL DISPOSITION OF CASES, FROM DECEMBER 12, 1910, TO SEPTEMBER
11,1911.
Disposition of cases.
Adjusted by mutual consent......................................................................................... ...
Dropped..............................................................................................................................
Adjusted in favor of the union..........................................................................................
Adjusted in favor of the association.................................................................................
Withdrawn.........................................................................................................................
Total cases disposed of.............................................................................................
Pending September 11.......................................................................................................
Non-Protocol cases............................................................................................................
Grand total...............................................................................................................

Number. Per cent.
348
253
202
174
27
1,004
155
42

34.7
25.2
17.3
2.7

2 0 .1

1 0 0 .0

1 ,1 0 1

The record of the final disposition of the 1,004 adjusted cases is
shown in the above table. Evidently in a large number of cases only
mediation was required, for 348 were adjusted by mutual consent and
253 were voluntarily dropped, the two classes forming 59.9 per cent
of the total cases disposed of.
Since fully one-third of all the grievances are occasioned by wage
disputes and because of the inability of one unacquainted with the1
1The final disposition of these cases was not learned.

232

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

industry to understand the method of employments, it is important to
note that the industry is divided between two groups of workers, the
“ pieceworker ” and the “ week worker.”
It is estimated that 80 per cent of those employed in the industry
are “ pieceworkers.” These “ pieceworkers ” are divided into three
groups known as “ operators,” “ finishers,” and “ piece tailors.” It
must be understood, however, that the last-named group makes a com
plete garment, but during a period of from three to four months in
each year the “ piece tailors ” are employed as sample makers on the
week-work basis.
The remaining 20 per cent are “ week workers ” and include the fol
lowing: Machine cutters, regular cutters, canvas cutters, skirt cutters,
jacket pressers, underpressers, skirt pressers, skirt underpressers, piece
pressers, reefer pressers, reefer underpressers, sample makers, sample
skirt makers, skirt basters, and skirt finishers.
In the above groups the presser’s wage is fixed at a certain minimum
amount for the 50 hours which constitute a week’s work. However,
these employees work by the hour and are paid by the hour, viz:
If a man works the full 50 hours he is entitled to the fixed wage; but
if he is employed a less number of hours he is entitled to pay for only
the actual hours he worked.
The “ cutters” and “ sample makers” are week workers. They
have a fixed minimum wage for a 50-hour week and are not paid for
the actual number of hours worked, as are the pressers.
The rule adopted by the Board of Grievances to govern this class
of employees is as follows:
All sample makers and cutters coming to work on Monday morning or at any
time during the week shall work during the entire week, or for the remainder
of the week, as the case may be. If laid off during the week, they shall be paid
for the entire week. Sample makers and cutters leaving their places during
the week shall not be entitled to any pay for any work which they performed
during any part of that week.
The above rule shall not apply to sample makers and cutters who are work
ing in a factory for the first week; the first week shall be known as a trial
week. In such a case, when a firm discharges an employee during the week, or
if a man leaves his place during the week, compensation shall be paid for the
actual amount of time in days or hours that the man has worked.

The following is the rule adopted by the Board of Grievances in
reference to payment for holidays:

First. If a workingman is engaged to work during the week of a holiday
after the holiday, he is not entitled to pay for the holiday.
Second. If a workingman is engaged during the week of a holiday, before
the holiday, or if he has worked for the firm during the previous week, he is
entitled to pay for the holiday in proportion to the amount of time that he
worked during the week in which the holiday occurred. For instance, if the
presser worked 41 hours during the week of the holiday, he is entitled to a full

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY. 2 3 3

week’s pay if that holiday did not fall on a Saturday. If the presser worked
only 30 hours during the week, he is entitled to pay for 30 hours’ work plus
30/41 of 9 hours.

The weekly, daily, and hourly wage rates; in accordance with the
scale of the Protocol and these rules, are as follows:
SCALE OP WAGES.

Occupations.
Machine cutters................................................................................................
Regular cutters.................................................................................................
Canvas cutters..................................................................................................
Skirt cutters......................................................................................................
Jacket pressers..................................................................................................
Underpressers..................................................................................................
Skirt pressers.....................................................................................................
Skirt underpressers...........................................................................................
Part pressers.....................................................................................................
Reefer pressers..................................................................................................
Reefer underpressers................................................................................. .
Sample makers.................................................................................................
Sample skirt makers........................................................................................
Skirt basters......................................................................................................
Skirt finishers...................................................................................................

Weekly. Daily. Hourly.
$25
25
12
21
21

18
19
15
13
18
14

22
22

$4.50
4.50
2.16
3.78
3.78
3.24
3.42
2.70
2.34
3.24
2.52
3.96
3.96
2.52
1.80

$0.50
.50
.24
.42
.42
.36
.38
.30
.26
.36
.28
.44
.44
.28
.2 0

CASES OF GRIEVANCES, SEPTEMBER 12 TO DECEMBER 11, 1911.

The previous tables presented the number and classification of
grievances, the means of adjustment, and by whom adjusted, during
the first nine months of the Protocol, or from December 12, 1910, to
September 11, 1911, covering a total of 1,101 grievances. The table
below presents a more detailed study of the grievances for the
remaining three months of the full year, or from September 12. 1911,
to December 11, 1911.
The average number of grievances during the first nine months
was a fraction over 122 per month, the average number during the
following three months was about 106 per month, or a diminution
of 16 grievances per month.
This does not accurately show the actual diminution of grievances,
for the reason that the Manufacturers’ Association, during the first
nine months after the establishment of the Protocol, contained a
membership of 123 firms, representing 15,256 people employed, but
during the last three months had increased its membership to 196
firms, representing 24,000 people employed; the ratio of grievances,
therefore, during the first nine months was 8 per month for every
1,000 persons employed, as against 4.4 per month for every 1,000 per
sons employed during the last three months.
Another important indication is the diminution of complaints by
members of the association. During the first nine months there were
103 complaints by the manufacturers out of a total of 1,101, or 9.4
per cent. The number of complaints recorded by the manufacturers
during the last three months were 22 out of a total of 317, or 6.9
per cent.
31326°—Bull. 98—12-----16

234

BULLETIN OF THE BUBEAU OF LABOR.

The following table shows for this latter period the number of
grievances according to the class and source of complaint and the
final disposition of the grievances :
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF GRIEVANCES COMPLAINED OF BY UNION AND ASSO
CIATION WHICH CAME BEFORE THE STAFF OF BOARD OF GRIEVANCES, SEPTEMBER 11 TO DECEMBER 11, 1911, ACCORDING TO CLASS OE GRIEVANCE.
Complaints made.

Disposition of grievances.
Adjusted.
Classification of grievances.

L Reinstatement for alleged unjustifiable
discharge...............................................
2. Discrimination and unequal distribu
tion of work..........................................
3. Dispute in fixing prices............................
4. Claim for wages du e................................
5. Paying under scale of wages.....................
6 . Working on garments when price is un
settled....................................................
7. Cessation of work.....................................
8 . Enforced competition between piece
workers and week workers...................
9. Interference with conduct of and disci
pline hi factory......................................
10. Non-Protocol conditions in outside
shops.....................................................
11. Nonpayment for holidays........................
12. Hours of labor and overtime...................
13. Discrimination in distribution of work
in favor of outside shops......................
14. Forced reduction of settled prices..........
15. Fixing amount of deduction from wages
for damaged garments..........................
16. Inside contract system.............................
17. Failure to install electric power..............
18. Delay in complying with terms of ad
justments...........................................
19. Abusive treatment of employees............
20 . Discrimination in distribution of work
against outside shops
2 1 . Miscellaneous..............
Non-Protocol cases............
Total

Per
By
In Droi With „By assoBy In fovor
Total. cent
ped
union.'
ciadrawn.
of
mu favor
tual of of
! tion.
total.
con union.
ciasent.
tion.
10
11
6
11
1
6

5
9

2
22

4
2

4
1

11
8

2
1

3
1
3

4
1
4

9
3

2 5

2
2
6

1
1; 2

1
1

2
1

40
47
21
49

........
........
........
........

4
7
15
3
7
15

........
9
........
2
........
........

11 .........

14 ........
4 1
2 ........

1 .....

1.6

41 109

.......
.....

40 12.6
47 14.8
21 6.6
49 15.5
11 3.5
4 1.3
16 5.0
15 4.7
5 1.6
7 22
15 4.7
18 5.7
6 1.9
14
5 1.6
2
1 .6.3

295

34 10.7
2
.6
22 317 100.0

A comparison between these two tables shows a considerable differ
ence in the relative importance of the leading causes of complaint.
Only 12.6 per cent of the grievances are due to alleged unjustifiable
discharge. Grievances connected with the distribution of work form
an almost identical proportion for the two periods—16.8 per cent in
the earlier, 16.7 per cent in the later. Disputes relating to the wage
scale or its violation (classifications 3, 5, 6, and 14) show a marked
decrease, causing only 15.8 per cent of the complaints in the second
table against 25 per cent in the first. The withholding of wages the
worker considers due him (classifications 4, 11, and 15) has increased
in importance, forming the basis of 69 claims—21.8 per cent—against
11.8 per cent in the earlier period. Disputes over hours of labor and

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

235

overtime show but a slight actual decrease and a marked relative
increase, giving rise to 5.7 per cent of the complaints.
The means of adjustment of the grievances during the last three
months of the full year, or from September 12, 1911, to December 11,
1911, was as follows:
MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT OF GRIEVANCES, SEPTEMBER 12 TO DECEMBER 11,
1911.
Means of adjustment.
Adjusted by the Board of Grievances..............................................................................
Adjusted by the deputy clerks of the board....................................................................
Referred to the Board of Arbitration...............................................................................
Total cases disposed of.............................................................................................
Non-Protocol cases.............................................................................................................
Grand total................................................................................................................

Number. Per cent.
7
307
1

315
2

2 .2

97.5
.3
1 0 0 .0

317

It will be seen from this table that 97.5 per cent of the complaints
disposed of in the last three months were adjusted by the deputy
clerks-of the Board of Grievances without being referred to the Board
itself against 79.5 per cent during the first nine months.
An interesting comparison of complaints in a given area between
association factories and independent factories (that is, factories
outside the Protocol agreement) is made by taking the entire area
from Fifty-ninth Street east and west to the Battery. In this dis
trict there are 1,413 independent establishments, employing 21,000
people. The number of complaints recorded in this district from
these independent establishments during the period from January 1,
1911, to December 31, 1911, was 11,773. The number of complaints
from 196 association factories, employing 24,000 people under the
Protocol, during a period of 12 months, or from December 12, 1910,
to December 11, 1911, was 1,418.
In the independent establishments it is necessary, in order to “ at
tend ” to the complaints, to have 30 business agents constantly em
ployed. The complaints in the association factories under the Pro
tocol are “ attended to ” by 11 deputy clerks of the Board of Griev
ances, 6 appointed by the Joint Board of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’
Unions and 5 by the Manufacturers’ Association.
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL CASES.

The following analysis and presentation of 11 actual cases pur
poses to show, by way of illustration, as nearly as possible, the de
tailed information secured in the case of each particular complaint
to serve as the basis for its proper adjustment, either by the deputy
clerks of the Board of Grievances or by the board itself.
The character of the complaints selected is such as to cover the
most serious elements of dispute between the contending parties.

BULLETIN OF THE BUBEAU OF LABOR.

236

In the selection of cases, particular attention has been paid to
have cases presented cohering a period of 8 months during the first
year of the Protocol. This has been done to show the gradual dimi
nution of time consumed in adjustment.
For example, case No. 1, cessation’of work: The complaint was
registered at 9 o’clock, Tuesday, April 11, and adjusted at 5 o’clock,
Friday, April 14, thereby consuming four working days in the
adjustment.
Case No. 8, unequal distribution of work: Another equally serious
grievance. This complaint was registered at 9 o’clock, Saturday,
October 7, and adjusted at 3 o’clock on the same date, thereby con
suming six hours in the adjustment.
C a s e N o 1.— F ir m : ------------------------.
C o m p l a in t b y : Association.
D a t e op C o m p l a in t : April 11, 1911.
D a t e of I n v e s t ig a t io n : April 11, 1911.
D a t e of A d j u s t m e n t : April 14, 1911.
N a t u r e of C o m p l a in t :

The association charges that there was a stoppage of work in the factory
of the firm and that this stoppage was caused by the order of the shop
chairman.

A bst r a c t s

of t h e

Issu e:

(a) Contention of the association—
The association contends that cessation of work is a violation of
the Protocol and unjustifiable under the circumstances, and that the
firm was justified in discharging the shop chairman for causing this
cessation.
(5) Contention of the union—
The union contends that a cessation of work was not clearly estab
lished, but that the people had simply stopped work on some num
bers on which the price had not been agreed upon.

A b st r a c t

F a c t s E s t a b l is h e d

I n v e s t ig a t io n :

1. The shop chairman came to the skirt department and told the tailors
that there was trouble in another department and that they should cease
work. The men ceased work, but when shown the provisions of the Pro
tocol regarding cessations of work they resumed work. The tailoring depart
ment did not resume work until the chairman had gone to the union and
returned at 11.30, at which time the men resumed work, the chairman
having left the shop at 11 o’clock.
2. The shop chairman testified that he did visit the other departments,
but told them that there was trouble in another department and that it was
up to them to know what to do.

D is p o s it io n :

The deputy clerks of the Board of Grievances could not agree and the
case was referred to the board for a decision.

I s s u e s I nvolved

in th e

T r ia l

of t h e

C a s e B efore

the

B oard

G r ie v a n c e s :

(a) From the standpoint of the association—
In whichever way the shop chairman put it, he was responsible
to all intents and purposes for the cessation of work, and as a
responsible representative of the men in the shop, such a violation
of the Protocol deserves condign punishment in the form of dismissal.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDTJSTKY IN NEW YOEK CITY. 2 3 7

(&) From the standpoint of the union—
The union took the position that, since the people ceased work
only for a very, very short period of time, and since they resumed
work almost immediately, justice would be served if the shop chair
man would be disciplined by the union.

D e c is io n :

On the basis of the foregoing facts and contentions of both sides the
Board of Grievances unanimously decided that the action of the firm in
discharging the shop chairman for ordering a cessation of work was
justified.

D is p o s it io n :

The case was therefore found in favor of the association.
C a s e N o. 2.— F i r m : -------------------------.

C o m p l a in t b y : Association.
D a t e of C o m p l a in t : June 8, 1911.
D a t e of I n v e st ig a t io n : June 8, 1911.
D a t e of A d j u s t m e n t : June 10, 1911.
N a t u r e of C o m p l a in t :

Dispute in price making.

A bst r a c t s

of t h e

Issu e:

(a) Contention of the association—
The association contended that the employer had 16 special gar
ments to deliver; that the price committee chosen to adjust prices
on these garments were incompetent to judge of same, and that in
consequence of this there was a delay of more than a week in set
tling the price and that the order would be canceled, entailing a
loss to the firm and the men, unless the matter was adjusted imme
diately.
(5) Contention of the union—
The union contended that the men were reasonable in their de
mands and perfectly competent to judge the garments and fix prices,
and that the delay was due as much to the firm as to the men.

A bst r a c t

F a c t s E s t a b l is h e d

D e c is io n

by th e

I n v e s t ig a t io n :

1. Sixteen garments of style No. 1148 had to be delivered within three
days or the order would be canceled.
2. There were some members on the price committee who had not been
in the habit of judging garments of the above style, which were in the
nature of special orders.
3. The price committee and the firm had been unable to agree on fixing
a price on the above number for several days.
4. The difference of opinion concerning the fixing of a price on the gar
ment in dispute between the firm and the men involved a large proportion
of the labor cost of production.
D eputy Clerks

of t h e

B oard

G r ie v a n c e s :

1. The 16 garments of the style in question were to be made at once.
2. A new price committee was to be elected at a meeting to be held by
the shop on the same day (June 8).
3. The price on this garment must be agreed upon by this committee and
the firm by Monday, June 12.
4. If there was no agreement on the price by the time mentioned above
a representative of the union and of the association was to fix the price,
which would be binding.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,

238
D is p o s it io n :

The price was mutually adjusted by the price committee and the firm to
the unqualified satisfaction of both sides.
C a s e N o. 3.— F ir m : ------------------------ .

C o m p l a in t b y : Union.
D a t e of C o m p l a in t : August 3, 1911.
D a t e of I n v e s t ig a t io n : August 4, 1911.
D a t e of A d j u s t m e n t : August 5, 1911.
N a t u r e of C o m p l a in t :

Unequal distribution of work and discrimination in favor of new work
men.

A b st r a c t s

of t h e

Issue:

(a) Contention of the union—
The union contended that the firm had installed a new department,
which was working in full force, while the old people were not being
given work. They further cpntended that the two departments were
doing similar work and that, therefore, there should be no discrimi
nation.
(b) Contention of the employer—
The firm absolutely denied any intent or act of discrimination, and
contended that the work was equally distributed in both departments.

A bst r a c t

F a c t s E s t a b l is h e d

D e c is io n

of t h e

I n v e s t ig a t io n :

1. Prior to the signing of the Protocol, the firm had engaged nonunion
men on a yearly contract. Section XIV of the Protocol provided that these
individual contracts shall be in force until their expiration, after which
none shall be renewed.. At about this time the contracts of these workers
expired and the firm engaged a new set of men, creating a department of
17 operators.
2. An examination of the books of the firm showed that the 17 workmen
in the new department mentioned above had been getting for the last two
weeks a number of garments in exact proportion to the workmen in the old
department, who were 13 in number.
3. The men in the old department who were under the impression that
the new department was getting all the work were requested to select from
their number any two or three workmen whose pay books would be ex
amined. The examination of each individual book tallied with the record
of the firm.
D epu ty Clerk s

of t h e

B oard

G r ie v a n c e s :

On the basis of the foregoing facts the clerks were convinced that the
difficulty arose because of the suspicious attitude of the employees in the
old department toward the employees in the new department.

D is p o s it io n :

The charge was declared unfounded and the case was found in favor of
the association.
C a s e N o . 4 .— F ir m :

C o m p l a in t b y : Union.
D a t e of C o m p l a in t : August 14, 1911.
D a t e of I n v e s t ig a t io n : August 15, 1911.
D a t e of A d j u s t m e n t ; August 15, 1911.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.
N ature

239

C o m p l a in t :

Tlie firm was not paying cutters the scale of wages.

A bst r a c t s

of t h e

Issu e:

(а ) Contention of the union—

The union contended that, since the signing of the Protocol, the
firm had had a staff of cutters only a very small portion cf whom
were getting the scale—$25 per week; the others were getting below
the scale in various amounts.
(б ) Contention of the employer—
The employer contended that he was paying all the regular cutters
the scale and that the others were learners.

A bst r a c t

F a c t s E s t a b l is h e d

D e c is io n

of t h e

I n v e st ig a t io n :

1. There were some cutters who were getting the scale; the majority
were not paid the scale.
2. While none of those cutters not receiving the scale could be consid
ered learners, they were in no sense standard cutters or competent mechan
ics according to the standards of the trade.
3. Since the signing of the Protocol, the firm had had in its employ three
or four of the incompetent mechanics mentioned, who were in the nature of
an incubus on the establishment, being kept by the firm through business
influence—buyers or salesman or relatives or other business connections.
D e p u t y Clerk s

of t h e

B oard

G r ie v a n c e s :

On the basis of the foregoing facts the clerks decided that on and after
December 1 the firm must pay every cutter the scale of wages if it retains
them in its employ.

D is p o s it io n :

The case was therefore found in favor of the union.
C a s e N o. 5.—F ir m : ------------------------- .
C o m p l a in t b y : Union.
D a t e of C o m p l a in t ; August 19, 1911.
D a t e of I n v e s t ig a t io n : August 21,1911.
D a t e of A d j u s t m e n t : August 22, 1911.

N ature

C o m p l a in t :

Forced reduction of settled prices.

A bst r a c t s

of t h e

I ssu e :

(a) Contention of the union—

The union contended that garment 221 was settled for 85 cents.
Later the firm cut one sample of the same garment from cheaper
material and forced a reduction of 10 cents, which the people agreed
to. It was subsequently found that the coat which they expected to
be cut from cheaper material was cut from the original material,
and they received 75 cents.
(b) Contention of the employer—
The employer contended that they had intended producing the
garment in an inferior quality of material, but found no market
for it.

A bstract

F a c t s E s t a b l is h e d

I n v e st ig a t io n :

The employees had worked one week on garments supposed to be
of cheaper material, but in reality they had never received a gar
ment cut from the cheaper material than the original garment, and
had received 75 cents, which was a reduction of 10 cents on the
original or fixed price,

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

240
D e c is io n

of t h e

D e p u t y C ler k s

of t h e

B oard

G r ie v a n c e s :

On the basis of the foregoing facts it was decided by the clerks that the
employees should receive 85 cents for the said garment and all garments
made of this material in the future, and that they should also receive the
difference due them on the garments they had made during the previous
week.

D is p o s it io n .

The case was therefore decided in favor of the union.
C a s e N o. 6.— F i r m : -------------------------.

C o m p l a in t b y : Union.
D a t e of C o m p l a in t : September 5, 1911.
D a t e of I n v e st ig a t io n : September 7, 1911.
D a t e of A d j u s t m e n t : September 8, 1911.
N a t u r e of C o m p l a in t :

The firm was not paying the workmen in the pressing department the
scale of wages.

A b st r a c t s

of t h e

A b st r a c t s

I ssue :

(a) Contention of the union—
The union contended that the pressers were not receiving the
scale.
(b) Contention of the employer—
The employer contended that they were and had been paying the
scale of wages, as could be shown on the books and records of the
office.
F a c t s E s t a b l is h e d

I n v e s t ig a t io n :

1. The pressers were getting the scale.
2. The complaint originated from one underpresser who had worked in
this shop during a part of the season and who, when there was a lack of
work, was laid off for comparative incompetence. Apparently for spite,
this man made the claim that he was not getting the scale, and bolstered
up his claim by submitting to the union the envelope of another under
presser, on which $17 was marked, the scale being $18.
3. It was established that this underpresser, who was receiving $17
every week instead of $18, was remitting to the firm, every week, $1 for a
concession to vend food and other articles to the people working in the
factory. This concession he has had for a number of years.

D e c is io n

of t h e

D epu ty Clerks

of t h e

B oard

G r ie v a n c e s :

On the basis of the foregoing facts the clerks decided that the firm was
paying the scale of wages in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol
and that the charge was unfounded.

D is p o s it io n :

The case was therefore found in favor of the association.
C a s e N o . 7.— F i r m : ------------------ .
C o m p l a in t b y : Union.
D a t e of C o m p l a in t : September 19, 1911.
D a t e of I n v e s t ig a t io n : September 20, 1911.
D a t e of A d j u s t m e n t : September 20, 1911.

N ature

C o m p l a in t :

Work on garments on which the price had not been fixed.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.
A bst r a c t s

of t h e

241

Issue:

(a) Contention of the union—
The union’s contention was that the firm had demanded of the
people that they work on garments on which the price had not been
settled, and they explained that, on some numbers,-there had been
an understanding between the firm and the men during the months
of June and July that a special price should be agreed upon for the
dull season, but that now, during the busy season, the firm demanded
that the people work at that price. This arrangement, the union
contends, is irregular and contrary to the rules of the Board of
Grievances.
(b) Contention of the employer—
The firm contended that these garments were bona fide settlements
for the entire season.

A b st r a c t

F a c t s E s t a b l is h e d

D e c is io n

of t h e

I n v e s t ig a t io n :

1. The issue involved concerned only one garment.
2. That style was made for a special price during the months of July
and August.
3. The firm and the men had not complied with the formality of signing
the price list.
4. The firm did not have the signature of the chairman of the price com
mittee on the adjustment of this number.
D e p u t y Cl e r k s

of t h e

B oard

G r ie v a n c e s :

On the basis of the foregoing facts the clerks decided that the adjust
ment on the style in question was irregular and could not be enforced in
the face of a dispute by either party.

D is p o s it io n :

The case was therefore found in favor of the union.
C a s e N o . 8.— F ir m : --------------------------.

C o m p l a in t b y : Union.
D a t e of C o m p l a in t : October 7, 1911.
D a t e of I n v e s t ig a t io n : October 7, 1911.
D a t e of A d j u s t m e n t : October 7, 1911.
N a t u r e of C o m p l a in t :

The foreman in the skirt department of the factory was playing favorites
and was not distributing the piecework equally.

A bst r a c t s

of t h e

Issue:

(a) Contention of the union—
The union contended that work should be distributed equally, as
far as possible, among the pieceworkers, which is one of the estab
lished rules of the Board of Grievances, and that their demand on
this point is equitable because, while a benefit to the men, it is not
detrimental to the best interests of the firm.
(b) Contention of the employer—
They have no knowledge of discrimination; they assumed the dis
tribution of work was equitable and had had no complaint from the
shop chairman hitherto.

A bst r a c t

F a c t s E s t a b l is h e d

I n v e s t ig a t io n :

The union submitted a table showing the wages of 18 skirt people during
the past three weeks. This table, when compared with the books of the
firm, showed that, after making allowances for sicknesses and absences,
there had been an unequal distribution of work.

BULLETIN OF THE BUBEATJ OF LABOR,

242
D e c is io n

of t h e

D eputy Clerks

of t h e

B oard

G r ie v a n c e s :

On the basis of the foregoing facts it was conceded that the complaint of
the union was justifiable and the fault lay with the foreman. The firm,
wishing to have no repetition of such complaints, agreed to discharge the
foreman at the end of the month, when his contract expired.

D is p o s it io n :

The case was therefore found in favor of the union.
C a s e N o.

9.—F ir m :

------------------------- .

C o m p l a in t b y : Union.
D a t e of C o m p l a in t : October 17, 1911.
D a t e of I n v e s t ig a t io n : October 17, 1911.
D a t e of R e in v e s t ig a t io n : October 19, 1911.
D a t e of A d j u s t m e n t : October 20, 1911.
N a t u r e of C o m p l a in t :

The shop chairman was discharged for no other reason than that he
maintained the rights of the men and contended for the Protocol conditions
in the shop.

A b st r a c t s

of t h e

Issue:

(a) Contention of the union—

The contention of the union is that the man was discharged solely
for his activity as shop chairman in standing for union principles in
the discharge of his duties.
(&) Contention of the employer—
The contention of the employer is that the shop chairman is over
bearing and dictatorial in his manner, is hampering the firm in its
dealings with the men, and is creating confusion by disputes with the
people.

A bst r a c t

F a c t s E s t a b l is h e d

I n v e s t ig a t io n s :

1. The shop chairman had been employed by the firm for a number of
years, had acted as shop chairman for a number of months, and had given
satisfaction to the firm and the men.
2. The relations between the shop chairman and the member of the firm
who had charge of the factory were friendly and almost cordial.
3. The shop chairman was a man of good judgment and had an under
standing of what are reasonable and unreasonable demands on the part of
the men.
4. In his capacity as shop chairman the man had shown strictness and
a somewhat autocratic manner in making the workingmen in the shop live
up to the regulations of the union in the payment of dues and assessments
which had been levied. This action of the shop chairman had created a
feeling of hostility on the part of some of the men in the shop toward him.
5. Prior to the difficulty under investigation the firm had been negotiating
prices on certain garments with the shop chairman, and the price com
mittee, as representing the sentiment of the shop, was not disposed to
agree to the offer of the firm in the fixing of prices on one or two styles.
The shop chairman was rather disposed to more than meet the firm half
way on this question of prices, and at the request of the firm called a shop
meeting, where this matter was discussed. At this meeting the shop chair
man took a noncommittal attitude on the subject, and the shop unani
mously decided to accede to the proposition of the firm.
6. Thereafter some members of the shop who had been ill disposed
toward the chairman for reasons explained in some way communicated to

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

243

the firm, through the foreman or others, that the shop chairman was the
cause of the difficulty.
7. The fact that the relations between the shop chairman and the firm
were cordial aggravated the feeling on the part of the firm, who felt that
he was guilty of double-dealing.
8. At the same time a dispute arose between the shop chairman and the
foreman in reference to the making of a special garment, which was of a
greater length than the usual styles on which the prices had been fixed.
In such cases it had been the custom of the shop to have the men who get
such garments make same without agreeing beforehand upon the additional
payment or bonus. On account of the strained relations between himself
and the firm, the shop chairman refused to make the garment in question
unless he get a certain additional price, which he requested should be
agreed upon in advance; this price the firm felt was exorbitant. The gar
ment was not made, and the order was canceled. Thereupon the firm told
the shop chairman that his sendees would no longer be required after he
finished out the garments he had in process.
The deputy clerks, October 18, reported a disagreement to the Grievance
Board. The board thereupon ordered a reinvestigation.
D e c is io n

of t h e

D e p u t y Cl e r k s

of t h e

B oard

G r ie v a n c e s :

On the basis of the foregoing facts, the clerks decided that the shop
chairman was wrongfully discharged. In this decision the firm cheerfully
acquiesced, being convinced from the facts established that they had acted
on a misunderstanding in the situation. This man was therefore reinstated
by the firm, but not as shop chairman.

D is p o s it io n :

The case was therefore found in favor of the union.
C a s e N o.

10.— F i r m :

-------------------------.

C o m p l a in t b y : Union.
D a t e of C o m p l a in t : November 16, 1911.
D a t e of I n v e s t ig a t io n : November 17, 1911.
D a t e of A d j u s t m e n t : November 17, 1911.
N a t u r e of C o m p l a in t :

The shop chairman was discharged and the union made charges of dis
crimination.

A b st r a c t s

of t h e

Issu e:

(a) Contention of the union—
The contention of the union is that the shop chairman had been
discharged at the beginning of the season because the firm did not
wish him to be in control of the shoj) in the settlement of prices for
that season.
(&) Contention of the employer—
The contention of the employer is that there was no question of
discrimination involved; that they never had trouble regarding
prices with their people, and that the discharge of the shop chairman
was decided upon simply for the peace and order of the shop.

A bst r a c t

F a c t s E s t a b l is h e d

I n v e st ig a t io n :

1. The man was not shop chairman at the time of his discharge.
2. On the evening of the day on which he was told that his services
would no longer be required, and he had received his pay, he kept the mat
ter of his discharge from his fellow workmen and ran for election as shop
chairman.

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

244

3. In liis relations with the firm the man had shown a disposition to
assume the responsibilities of shop chairman only at such times as he
thought it was to his personal advantage to do so. During the busy season,
when the shop chairmanship entails a loss of time, he invariably refused to
act as shop chairman, while during the dull season he contrived to be elected.
4. The immediate cause of his discharge was a serious quarrel which he
had with another workman who was selected to make the duplicates. That
workingman had only worked for the firm during the previous season, but as
his work was exceptionally good the firm selected him to make the dupli
cates, overlooking M r.---------, who formerly made them.
5. It was the testimony of the shop chairman and the other members of
the price committee, speaking for the shop, that the rights of the men would
be as fully conserved, if not better, with the elimination of M r.---------from
the shop.

D e c is io n

of t h e

D e p u t y Cl e r k s

of t h e

B oard

G r ie v a n c e s :

On the basis of the foregoing facts the clerks found that, for the welfare
of all concerned, since the man was at odds with the firm and the men, he
should not be reinstated.

D is p o s it io n :

The case was found for the association and the man’s discharge upheld.
C a s e N o.

11.—F ir m : ------------------ .

C o m p l a in t b y : Union.
D a t e of C o m p l a in t : December 7, 1911.
D a t e of I n v e s t ig a t io n : December 8, 1911.
D a t e o f A d j u s t m e n t : December 8, 1911.
N a t u r e of C o m p l a in t :

Claim for wages due.

A b st r a c t s

of t h e

Issu e:

(a) Contention of the union—
The union contended that Presser---------worked for the firm dur
ing the week ending November 30, and that he was entitled to $22.40,
but only received $13.50.
(ft) Contention of the employer—
The employer contended that the employee was paid in full and
that he, therefore, had no claim.

A b st r a c t

F a c t s E s t a b l is h e d

I n v e st ig a t io n :

1. The employer had no method of recording the time worked by the
employees.
2. The man in question had worked the actual time claimed in regular
hours and overtime.
3. The man worked there for a period of one week only.

D e c is io n

of t h e

D eputy Clerk s

of t h e

B oard

G r ie v a n c e s :

On the basis of the foregoing facts the clerks decided that the man was
entitled to the claim as presented, and the amount due him was calculated
to be $8.90.

D is p o s it io n :

The case was, therefore, found in favor of the union.

ADVANTAGES GROWING OUT OF THE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT.

The advantages gained and evils avoided by the provisions of the
Protocol may be separated into two distinct groups, namely: (1)

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY. 2 4 5

Those which are a direct result of the signing of the Protocol; (2)
those which have resulted in consequence of the machinery created
and set in motion by the Protocol.
ADVANTAGES GAINED BY THE MEN AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE
PROTOCOL.
of the P rinciple of Collective B argaining .—Prior
to the advent of the Protocol the employers endeavored to establish
prices for pieceworkers without regard to the wishes of their em
ployees in the matter. Since the establishment of the Protocol prices
are fixed by the employer and a price committee representing the
employees, with right of appeal to the Board of Grievances.
D ecrease in the N umber of H ours of W ork from 54 to 50.—This
decrease in the number of hours from 54 to 50 per week represents
more than it appears, as the 50 hours are now in force for those who
formerly worked from 60 to 70 hours per week for subcontractors,
as well as for some manufacturers.
I ncrease of W ages for W eek W orkers.—This not only accrues
to week workers in Protocol shops, but has permitted an approach
to a standardization of wages in shops not governed by the Protocol.
The increase represents about 10 per cent.
A bolition of the I nside C ontracting S ystem .— The abolition of
the contract system inside the factory avoids the evils of a padrone
system and at the same time prevents unscrupulous superintendents
and foremen from exploiting labor without the knowledge of the
manufacturers.
I ntroduction of E lectricity as P ower and I nstallation of
M eans of P roduction (S ewing M achines ). —Formerly many other
wise well-equipped establishments refused to introduce electricity, on
the ground of economy, evidently blind to the advantage of increased
efficiency through its use. This is also true regarding the ownership
of the means of production. Prior to the strike a very considerable
number of employees owned their sewing machines and were obliged
to install them at their own expense. Because of the seasonal nature
of the trade, it was not uncommon for a man to work in three or four
different establishments during a year, and he was obliged, under the
old system, to pay for the cartage of his sewing machine from one
establishment to another. The adoption of electricity is not yet com
plete. In July, 1911, of 779 shops south of Houston Street only 199
used electric power. During the next six months 310 were induced to
install it, leaving 270 shops still without it in January, 1912.1
R estrictions on O vertime W ork.—Prior to the present agreement
overtime knew no bounds, nor was it confined to the busy season nor

R ecognition

1 Bulletin No. 5 of Joint Board of Sanitary Control, Jan., 1912.

246

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

to any class of employers or employees. It was simply a question of
liow much work a man was able to get from his employer, and, on
the part of the employer, how much work he could have finished
ready for delivery in a given time to his advantage. The present
method prevents excessive overwork for any individual, distributes
the work more equally among the employees, lessens the strain of the
rush period, and tends to shorten the dull season.
A bolition of H ome W ork .— The practice of taking work home,
aside from the evils involved of making garments under insanitary
conditions, prevented a proper or equal distribution of work. Fore
men and superintendents, without the knowledge of the employers,
in a great many instances gave the preference in the distribution of
work to so-called favorites.
P ay to W eek W orkers for 10 L egal H olidays .—Payment for
holidays was formerly at the discretion of the employer, there being
no uniform recognition in the industry of holidays nor of the pay
ment to week workers for such holiday. At present the 10 legal
holidays as established by the laws of the State of New York are
being observed almost universally in both Protocol and non-Protocol
shops.
R egular W eekly P ay D ay and P ay in C a sh .—Prior to the strike
of 1910 many employers paid their employees at will, having no regu
lar pay day; others changed the pay day to suit their convenience,
while in a great many cases payment was made in checks, much to the
disadvantage of the employees.
M in im u m S cale of W ages for W eek W orkers.— The establish
ment of a minimum scale of wages for week workers has not only
worked to the advantage of those making the scale, but has tended
to establish the same scale in the entire industry.
D ouble P ay for O vertime of W eek W orkers.—As in the case
of the payment of week workers prior to the establishment of a
minimum wage, payment for overtime was haphazard, but double
time for overtime is becoming the established price in the industry.
C reation of C onditions for S afety and H ealth of W orkers.—

This was brought about through the establishment of the Joint Board
of Sanitary Control. The result of the work of this board is pre
sented in detail on pages 253 to 270.
P rotection against the L ockout .—In accordance with section 17
of the Protocol the parties to it have agreed that there shall be no
lockout until the controversy has been submitted to the Board of
Grievances. In the event of a failure to adjust such grievance by
that board, the controversy shall be submitted to the Board of Arbi
tration for adjustment. This method has proven successful and has
safeguarded the interests of the employees.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY. 2 4 7

A bolition of the P ractice of E xacting S ecurity from E m
ployees .—The method of exacting security from employees prior to

the strike had become a ground of serious complaint in the trade.
Unscrupulous manufacturers and contractors, as well as some socalled legitimate employers, practiced this evil to a very consider
able extent. Indeed, it was said that thousands of dollars of em
ployees’ money had been tied up through this process. The prac
tice was to exact from the employees security in amounts ranging
from $5 to $20 and even as high as $50 to insure their continuance
with their employers.
ADVANTAGES GAINED BY THE MANUFACTURERS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF
THE PROTOCOL.

P rotection against S trikes .—In accordance with section 17 of the
Protocol the parties to it have agreed that there shall be no strike
until the controversy has been submitted to the Board of Grievances.
In the event of a failure to adjust such grievance by that board the
controversy shall be submitted to the Board of Arbitration for ad
justment. This method has proven successful and has safeguarded
the interests of the employers.
R estriction of U nfair
turer and A nother w ith

C ompetition as B etw een O n e M a n ufac
R eference to C ost of L abor .— The estab

lishment of a minimum scale of wages for the week workers, who
constitute about 20 per cent of all those employed at the trade, has
minimized the competition in so far as week workers are concerned.
The system of collective bargaining for pieceworkers, who constitute
the remaining 80 per cent employed in the industry, has entirely
eliminated competition in wage rates so far as members of the Manu
facturers’ Protective Association are concerned. To a very consider
able extent manufacturers not under the Protocol are observing this
method of dealing with the cost of labor. The abolishment of
tenement-house work has also eliminated unfair conditions as between
the unscrupulous manufacturer and employers of the better class.
C reation of C onditions T ending to E lim inate U n fa ir C ompe
tition B etw een S hops of the B etter C lass an d the U nscrupulous
E mployer .— This was done by establishing standards of health and

safety and sanitary conditions throughout the industry. The result
of the work of the board is presented in detail on pages 253 to 270.

ADVANTAGES GAINED BY THE MEN WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN CONSE
QUENCE OF THE MACHINERY CREATED AND SET IN MOTION BY THE
PROTOCOL.

P rompt R edress of G rievances .—This was obtained through the
creation of a trade court with jurisdiction over claims for wages and
acts of discrimination by foremen and superintendents. Past com

248

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

plaints of the employees have been that for no accountable reason
they were discharged. The presentation of a grievance of any
kind to the foreman was sufficient cause for discharge. In the case
of a summary discharge wages due for unfinished garments were
withheld. Charges of inefficiency based on an unfair examination of
the work of an employee made another cause of discontent. The em
ployees now have an opportunity to present all complaints to the
unions, which in turn adjust them either through the clerks of the
Board of Grievances or the board itself.
E qual D istribution of W ork in so far as P ossible.— Formerly
the employer depended on the foreman in each department of his
factory to distribute the work as best suited him. This method, or,
rather, the evils growing out of this method, constituted one of the
foremost contentions of the employees. For example, the question of
race in one factory decided who was to get the bulk of the work.
In another it became a question of family, or, rather, how much
work could be given to a particular family to the advantage of the
foreman. In other instances some men were permitted to work the
entire day and far into the night, while others who were reporting
each day to the factory were refused employment. The present
method is that the shop chairman is responsible to the men for an
equal distribution of work, as it becomes his duty to report to
the employer any discrimination on the part of the foreman or
superintendent.
E nforcement of the G uaranties of the P rotocol.— The guaran
ties of the Protocol are enforced by an association of manufacturers,
which assumes collective responsibility for each member thereof.
In accordance with section 6 of the Protocol the employer is liable
to the, Manufacturers’ Association for acts of discrimination against
any of his employees. The method of discipline has been invoked
by the Manufacturers’ Association in several instances.
ADVANTAGES GAINED BY THE MANUFACTURERS WHICH HAVE RESULTED
IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE MACHINERY CREATED AND SET IN MOTION BY
THE PROTOCOL.

S ecurity from L oss and A nnoyance through L awsuits.— The
loss of money and the annoyance entailed by lawsuits on the part of
workmen and subcontractors were features of the difficulties in
the industry before the signing of the Protocol. In the past manu
facturers were in the habit of employing subcontractors. Unscrup
ulous subcontractors exacted from their employees a security in
amounts ranging from $5 to $50 on the plea of security for them
selves that their employees would remain with them throughout the
season. Cases have been pointed out where the subcontractor not
only neglected to return this security, but also neglected to pay to

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY. 2 4 9

his employees the wages due them. This entailed no end of annoy
ance through lawsuits against the manufacturers by the employees
of the subcontractor. It also meant in many cases risk of loss to the
manufacturer of material furnished the subcontractor.
P rotection

against

E xorbitant D emands

P ieceworkers.—

There had been exorbitant demands at the height of the season for
an increase in prices for work on the part of pieceworkers, who form
80 per cent of those employed in the trade. By reason of the system
of collective bargaining made possible by the Protocol, the manu
facturer is now able to proceed with the filling of orders on the basis
of a standard price for labor throughout the season on each and
every garment.

Creation of M ethods of D iscipline and O rder in the C onduct
of the F actory.— In the maintenance of these methods the union

aids and cooperates. The present method of dealing with employees
who create disturbances, or who are guilty of negligence or some
“ wrongful act,” is that the union either fines the employee or expels
him from membership. This method has worked to the advantage of
the employer in many cases since the establishment of the Protocol.
Creation of Conditions which

tend to L engthen the S eason .—

The reduction of hours and the limitations on overtime tend to dis
tribute the work throughout a longer period. This, by reducing the
intense stress of the busy season, gives the manufacturer a chance to
have better work done, to become better acquainted with his working
force, and to establish with them relations of good faith and mutual
respect which tend to diminish friction and which help both sides.
At the same time, by shortening the dull season, it decreases the
period through which his plant must stand idle, or only partly
employed.
The consensus of opinion in the industry seems to indicate a grow
ing stability of employment since the advent of the Protocol. It is
estimated that nearly 25 per cent of all the workers in the industry
are constantly employed throughout the year.
Formerly 65 per cent of the pieceworkers were unemployed during
a period of five months in the year. At present, on account of the
more nearly equal distribution of work, it is believed that not more
than 25 per cent of the pieceworkers are unemployed during the slack
season. The balance are in the factories with a prospect of earning
about one-third the regular wage.
Forty-five per cent of the week workers, other than cutters, are
employed the entire year. This condition has been made possible in
part by a migration from one branch of the trade to another. For
example, during a comparatively slack time in the cloak, suit, and
31326°—Bull. 98—12-----17

250

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

skirt industry many of the operatives enter the ladies’ tailoring and
dressmaking establishments, thus making a full season out of what
otherwise would have been a short season.
The continuity of employment and the wages earned in specific
branches of the trade have very materially changed in the past 18
months. At present they are about as follows:
Operators: In the busy season operators earn from $30 to $40 per
week. This busy season is in no way continuous—in fact, it is very
much broken on account of the seasonal conditions of the trade. The
average busy time for an operator is about 24 weeks during the year.
The remainder of the work year of 18 weeks his average earnings
are about $10 per week, leaving 10 weeks as the slack season in which
he earns nothing.
. Piece tailors: The piece tailor earns from $30 to $40 per week for
an average period of 24 weeks during the year, but for a period of
about 13 weeks he becomes a sample maker and earns $22 per week as
a week worker. During the remaining 15 weeks of the year he is
able to work as a piece tailor for about 5 weeks at one-third his earn
ing capacity. This leaves him a slack season of 10 weeks without an
opportunity for employment.
Pressers: Pressers earn from $21 to $28 per week during the busy
season of 24 weeks and from $10 to $12 in the slack season. Their
slack season, however, is for a period of 15 weeks, leaving a period of
13 weeks in which they are unemployed.
Finishers: Finishers earn $20 per week during the busy season of
24 weeks, and from $11 to $13 per week in their slack season of 18
weeks. This leaves a period of 10 weeks of unemployment.
Sample makers: Sample makers earn from $22 to $30 per week
during the busy season and from $18 to $20 in the slack season.
Cutters: Cutters earn $25 per week as week workers during the
period of 26 weeks. The remainder of the year they are able to earn
$12 per week for about 12 weeks, leaving 14 weeks of unemployment.
Fifteen per cent of the cutters, however, are employed constantly
during the year at the regular scale of $25 per week.
Conditions in the industry so far as continuity of employment is
concerned are still most unsatisfactory. That there has been a vast
improvement in conditions, made possible through the Protocol, is
conceded by both employer and employed.
Formerly the type of manufacturers making medium and lowpriced merchandise were the only ones who could give their em
ployees an average of 10 months’ work during the year. This type
of manufacturers produced merchandise to sell for not more than
$25 per suit at retail.
These manufacturers, as a rule, produce a class of merchandise
that is considered staple; thus they are able safely to extend their

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY. 2 5 1

work period either through making up merchandise in advance of its
being sold or through taking orders at price concessions consider
ably in advance of delivery seasons.
The proprietors of establishments of the better class, those who may
be called the leading style exponents, who practically control the
production of high-priced suits and coats, gave their employees a very
much more limited season. The combined seasons rarely lasted more
than eight months out of the year.
In considering the reasons for the shorter periods in the busy
season for this better class of establishments, it is important to take
into consideration the fact that, even though they are style ex
ponents, they are at the mercy or whim of the consumer. The manu
facturer never knows whether a certain style or design of garmehts
will become a staple for an entire season or be discarded as obsolete
within a month.
BOARD OF ARBITRATION.

Section 16 of the Protocol provides for the establishment of a
Board of Arbitration to serve as a final court of appeal. The section
reads as follows:

The parties hereby establish a Board of Arbitration to consist of three
members, composed of one nominee of the manufacturers, one nominee of the
unions, and one representative of the public, the latter to be named by Meyer
London, Esq., and Julius Henry Cohen, Esq., and, in the event of their inability
to agree, by Louis Marshall, Esq.
To such board shall be submitted any differences hereafter arising between
the parties hereto, or between any of the members of the manufacturers and
any of the members of the unions, and the decision of such Board of Arbitra
tion shall be accepted as final and conclusive between the parties to such
controversy.

Pursuant to the above, the following were appointed as members
of the Board of Arbitration: Louis D. Brandeis, of Boston, Mass.,
as representing the public; Hamilton Holt, of New York City, rep
resenting the Manufacturers’ Protective Association; and Morris
Hillquit, of New York City, representing the Cloak and Skirt
Makers’ Unions.
The only meeting which the Board of Arbitration has thus far
held took place in New York City, March 4, 1911, and continued for
a period of three days. The hearings before the board were initiated
by the Manufacturers’ Protective Association, but the Board of
Grievances took advantage of this opportunity to present for con
firmation a plan of procedure and set rules. The rules and plans
of procedure, as hereinbefore stated,1 were concurred in by the Board
of Arbitration and adopted by the Board of Grievances.

1 See page 220.

252

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

The Board of Arbitration, while holding itself in readiness to ad
judicate any and all disputes which the Board of Grievances has been
unable to adjust, has been chiefly concerned with providing the latter
board (which in reality is a trade court) with adequate machinery,
the desire being to formulate such effective methods of procedure and
rules to govern all disputes that recourse to the Board of Arbitration
would be unnecessary save in rare cases. The object is to make it wellnigh impossible on the presentation of any complaint or dispute to
postpone or prevent the application of a remedy by the Board of
Grievances.
The disputes and many other important matters brought to the
attention of the Board of Arbitration were indicative of what later
might become concrete grievances. They arose principally from the
defective operations of the Grievance Committee and its failure to
adopt proper rules, together with the inadequate enforcement of the
decrees upon both the manufacturers and the unions.
The Board of Arbitration heard testimony on all the important
subjects submitted to it, but had time to deal only with the more
immediately pressing controversies.
The following grievances and disputes were submitted to the Board
of Arbitration:
On the part of the manufacturers:

1. That the unions had refused to extend the terms of the Protocol to certain
new members of the Manufacturers’ Association who had entered into indi
vidual contracts with the unions prior to their membership in the association.
2. That the unions had decided to abolish week work in all departments,,
except for cutters, pressers, and sample makers, and that they had taken such
decision without consultation with the manufacturers.

On the part of the unions:

1. That certain members of the association had established and are establish
ing shops outside of the city of New York and are operating such shops under
standards and conditions inferior to those provided by the Protocol.
2. That several members of the association were employing contractors out
side of New York, who likewise operated their shops under standards and con
ditions inferior to those provided by the Protocol.

The time consumed in the presentation of matters submitted to the
Board of Arbitration by the contending parties compelled it at its
first and only session to limit its work to the following subjects:
(1) The adoption of definite rules and plan of procedure for the
Board of Grievances.
(2) The status of new members of the association who have unex
pired individual contracts with the unions.
(3) The application of the terms of the Protocol to shops operated
by members of the Manufacturers’ Association outside of the city of
New York.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YOKK CITY.

253

DECISIONS AND OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE BOARD OE ARBITRATION.

In regard to (1) the adoption of rules, considerable testimony was
submitted by both sides in support of their contentions upon all the
points at issue in each case, but in all of the cases submitted the Board
of Arbitration was unanimously of the opinion that with the amended
rules of the Board of Grievances both employers and employees were
given an effective instrument for the enforcement in the future of the
terms of the Protocol.
In regard to (2) the status of new members of the association, the
Board of Arbitration rendered the following decision:
That new members should be recognized by the unions in the same manner
as the original members of the association, and that the operation of the Pro
tocol is to be extended to all such members alike.

As regards (3) the maintenance of shops by the members of the
Manufacturers’ Association outside of the city of New York, the
Board of Arbitration unanimously inclined to the belief that the
parties to the agreement intended to provide for certain standards
and conditions of work which would tend to raise the level of the
industry, to better the lot of the employees, and to regulate the rela
tions of employer and employees in an equitable manner. This inten
tion could obviously not be carried on if the employers were permitted
to evade their obligations under the Protocol by the expedient of
establishing shops outside of the city of New York; further, that
such practice would eventually prove disastrous and tend to disin
tegrate the association, as well as the unions, inasmuch as it would
stimulate unfair competition, which would finally destroy the prin
cipal objects for which the association was formed.
The board further expressed the belief that instead of seeking to
curtail the operations of the Protocol both parties to it should make
every effort to extend its territory until the entire trade should be
carrying on this common work under beneficent influences. The
board deferred taking final action, however, preferring to permit the
contending parties to settle the controversy by a voluntary agree
ment, but signified its readiness to resume its deliberations on the
subject and render a decision.
JOINT BOARD OF SANITARY CONTROL.

The most original feature of the Protocol and one with great possi
bilities for good, not only for those directly interested in the industry
but for those interested in all practicable means of securing higher
standards of sanitation, ventilation, and safety for the thousands of
workers in the factories, is the Joint Board of Sanitary Control.

254

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

The fifteenth section of the Protocol, which made it mandatory
upon the parties at interest to establish a Joint Board of Sanitary
Control, reads as follows:

T h e parties hereby establish a Joint Board of Sanitary Control to consist of
seven members, composed of two nominees of the manufacturers, two nomi
nees of the unions, and three who are to represent the public, the latter to be
named by Meyer London, Esq., and Julius Henry Cohen, Esq., and in the event
of their inability to agree, by Louis Marshall, Esq.
Said board is empowered to establish standards of sanitary conditions, to
which the manufacturers and the unions shall be committed, and the manufac
turers and the unions obligate themselves to maintain such standards to the
best of their ability and to the full extent of their power.

In accordance with the above mandate, on or about October 31,
1910, the following were appointed members of the board: On behalf
of the Manufacturers’ Protective Association, Max Meyer and S. L.
Silver; on behalf of the unions, Benjamin Schlessinger and George
M. Price, M. D.; and as representatives of the public, William Jay
Schieffelin, Lillian D. Wald, and Henry Moskowitz, M. D.
The board is mindful- of the fact that it has no legal standing or
power. For the enforcement of its standards it depends entirely
upon the agreement of the signers of the Protocol “ to clean up the
industry.” The disciplinary powers of the association and the unions
have often been invoked in the pursuance of its duties.
A most interesting aspect of the workings of the Protocol is that
while its originators intended to establish everlasting peace in the
industry, without lockout or strike or other embroilments, they did,
in fact, establish a unique, practical, militant striking machine. To
this militant power is due a part of the splendid achievements of the
board. From time immemorial there have been strikes for the shorter
workday, for increase in wages, and against intolerable working
conditions. The strike on account of the insanitary conditions of the
shop is an entirely new weapon, and is unique in that it directs the
full strength of the associated employers and employees alike against
the offending party.
The sanitary strike is the final step in a carefully regulated pro
cedure, which begins with the inspection of a shop by the Board of
Sanitary Control, either in the course of its regular work or in
response to a complaint from workers employed there. If sanitary
conditions do not reach the standard agreed upon, the employer is
notified, and if a second inspection shows that he has not acted upon
the notice, he is visited and reasoned with. If he still continues
obdurate, notice to that effect is sent to the Manufacturers’ Associa
tion and to the unions. Thereafter, until he complies with the noti
fications of the Board of Sanitary Control, no member of a union
will work for him, and no manufacturer in the association will give

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

255

out work for him to do, or handle any garment made in his shop.
Practically there are only two alternatives before him—to comply or
to go out of business.1 If the condition of the shop is very bad, the
employer may be notified after the first inspection that it is unfit for
occupation, and if he refuses to vacate it, the strike may be called
without further parley.
In the eyes of the collective interests the sanitary strike is entirely
justifiable, inasmuch as it is in the interest of humane conditions.
Both sides agree in looking upon it as the only means of lifting the
industry out of the condition to which it has been brought by the
unscrupulous employer.
During the first full year since the establishment of the Board of
Sanitary Control there were 27 sanitary strikes, involving about 350
people. The average duration of such strikes was a fraction over
one week in each instance. None of these strikes was against any
member of the Manufacturers’ Association.
The association and the unions have shared equally in the burdens
and responsibilities of creating sanitary conditions in the shops.
Each side has eagerly responded to responsibilities, both morally and
financially. As an instance of the confidence of the contributing
parties in the work of the board it is only necessary to mention the
request of the board to the Manufacturers’ Association and the unions
under date of April 18,1911.
Just six months after the original request for finances the plan and
budget committee of the board presented their scheme for permanent
organization of their work. This plan and budget carried with it a
request for $7,000, $3,500 to be contributed by each body. The sum
was promptly contributed by the respective bodies and the board put
on a permanent basis.
It is to be remembered that the Joint Board of Sanitary Control
was established by a provision of the Protocol, the contributing
parties being the Manufacturers’ Association and the Cloak and
Skirt Makers’ Unions. The funds provided for the promotion of the
activities of this board are contributed equally by the parties at in
terest. Inasmuch as the work of the board covers the entire cloak,
suit, and skirt industry in New York City, it will be seen that a great
number of establishments are being benefited gratuitously by its
work.
WORK OF THE BOARD.

Almost immediately after the appointment of the board the work
of organization began. At a meeting of the board held a month
later committees previously appointed made their reports and their
recommendations were adopted. Plans for a comprehensive, scien
1 Details of the proceedings leading up to a sanitary strike in an actual case are given
on p. 264.

256

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

tific, and systematic investigation of all the shops in the industry in
the city were at once undertaken for the purpose of formulating and
establishing sanitary standards.
The adoption of the report of the committee on plan and budget
carried with it a request to the Manufacturers’ Association and the
Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Unions, the two contributing bodies, for the
sum of $1,000 each to promote the work of the board. This sum was
promptly voted the board by both parties.
The schedules prepared for the investigation were adopted only
.after a very thorough study of the necessities of the undertaking and
of the purposes they were expected to fill. In this work the board
had the voluntary cooperation and advice of a large number of the
most prominent sanitary and industrial experts in the country.
The following is a copy of the schedule used in the investigation:

INSPECTOR’S SCHEDULE, JOINT BOARD OF SANITARY CONTROL.
G. S. I.......................... Date............ Inspector...................... Pr.Insp......... San.Certift
. No......... FI......... 33 Shop: Dimens., h t.. 34 W............L...........
Street...........................
Firm______________
35 Total C. S................. 36 Per person
37 Condition floors....... 38 W .&C..................
39 Windows No............ 40 Condition..............
1 Empl. iriAn............... 24 Women.....................
Fr. or R .................... 41 Ventil....................... 42 Is sh. aired noon...
3 Bldg..........................
43 Is artif. ill. needed__ 44 Where..................
5 Fire esc.—No............ 6 Location................... 45 Gas, electr., lt.......... 46 Power....................
7 Drop lad.................... 8 Doors-in-out locked . 47 Burners: kind......... 48 Shades...................
9 Openings................... 10 Exits........................ 49 W. C. No. male........ 50 Female..................
11
E xtinguishers........... 12 Buckets..................... 51 Location................... 52 Partitions..............
13 Sprinklers............ . 14 F. E. cards............... 53 Separation................ 54 Approaches...........
55 Material fl................. 56 Condition fl...........
15 Drills.......................... 16 Smoking...................
17 Hall width................ 18 Lt. & ilium.............. 57 W. C. apt. lt............ 58 W. C. apt. ventil..
19 Ventil........................ 20 Condition................. 59 W. C. kind............... 60 Flush.....................
Stairs, No. .Width__ 22 Material.................... 61 Markings.................. 62 Caretaker..............
21
23 Rails.......................... 24 Treads...................... 63 Seats backed............ 64 Gen. cleanliness sh.
65 Cuspidors................. 66 Rec. rubbish__ __
25 Heating..................... 26 Irons.........................
67
27 Stoves inclosed......... 28 rpo
68
29 Wash rooms.............. 30 W. basins................. 69
70
31 Dressing rooms......... 32 Lunch.....................
Remarks............................................................................................................................................................
1 F . P .........................................................................................................................................................................
2L.M...............................................................................................................................................................
3 Vent...............................................................................................................................................................
4 San. care........................................................................................................................................................
5 San. comf.......................................................................................................................................................

The following is an extract from the instructions given by the
chairman of the committee to the inspectors as to their behavior
and work;
I nstructions to I nspectors .

In the investigation of all the shops in the cloak-making industry, the Joint
Board of Sanitary Control is undertaking a social-welfare work.
Recognizing the high character of the persons constituting our inspectorial
force, the board hopes that they will become imbued with the spirit of our
work, and will pursue their investigations less for the nominal fees which we
pay them and more for the social character of the work itself.
The inspectors are reminded that they have no legal standing whatever, and
no right of entry into the shops. They can enter these only with the permission
of their owners or by courtesy of the union.
On entering shops, the inspectors will ask for the owner or foreman of the
shop, state his official connection with the Joint Board of Sanitary Control, and
request the privilege of inspecting the shop. Should permission be denied, he

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

257

will make no comments, give no arguments, but retire and report the facts to
the chief inspector.
Inspectors are requested to be courteous, tactful, and polite, and to do no
talking or explaining further than to state their connection with this board.
Under no circumstances should an inspector tell either the owner or the
representative of the union of the results of his inspection.
The board also trusts that inspectors will refrain from using the knowledge
gained by them in the course of inspection for any other purpose except that of
filling out the inspection cards, and they must not divulge any information to
anyone outside of our board.
Inspectors will be requested to be in the field of inspection at 9 a. m,, continue
work until 12 m., resume their work at 1 p. m., and continue same until 5
p. m. On Saturdays they will be expected to work from 8 a. m. until 1 p. m.,
and report at the office of the board at 2 p. m.
PLAN OE WORK ADOPTED.

The first inspection, made in February, 1911, covered 1,243 shops,
of which about two-thirds were found defective either in fire pro
tection or sanitary condition, or both. The effort to bring these
shops up to the standard involved a number of reinspections, and
much educational work among employers and employees alike. By
July 15 the board was able to announce that of the 823 defective
shops 29 had removed from their objectionable quarters, 740 had
made improvements in compliance with the board’s orders, and only
54 remained unimproved. Meanwhile, surveying what had been
done, what must be done in the future, and the means so far found
effective, the following presentation of the board’s activities was
prepared:
W o r k o f t h e J o in t B oard o f S a n it a r y C o n t r o l.
INVESTIGATION.

Regular.
Special.
Inspection on complaints.
Investigation of ventilation.
Reinspection on fire protection. Investigation of light and illuReinspection on sanitary condi- mination.
tions.
Regular semiannual inspections.
ENFORCEMENT.

Persuasion.
Interview by inspectors.
Letters from office.
Telephone by executive commit
tee.
District managers of unions.

Force.
Reference to health department.
Reference to building department.
Reference to labor bureau.
Reference to M. P. A.
Reference to board.
Sanitary strike.

258

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

Employers.
Conferences.
Bulletins.
Certificates.
Interviews with inspectors.
Trade press.
Exit cards.
Standards.

EDUCATION.

Workers.
Conferences with leaders of
unions.
Bulletins.
Interview of inspectors.
Noon lectures.
Sanitary shop committee.
Lantern-slide lectures.
Lectures before shop meetings.
Trade press.

COST OF INSPECTIONS.

In accordance with this plan a second inspection was made in
August. Greater familiarity with the situation rendered it possible
to make this investigation more nearly complete than the earlier one;
1,738 shops were located and inspected, against 1,243 found in Feb
ruary.1 The following tables show the number of inspectors em
ployed and the cost of inspection for each of the two semiannual
inspections:
DAYS WORKED BY INSPECTORS AND AVERAGE INSPECTIONS PER DAY.
F ir s t
in s p e c
tio n .

N u m b e r o f in s p e c to rs e m p lo y e d ..............................................................................................................................................................
N u m b e r o f d a y s w o r k e d b y in s p e c to rs ..........................................................................................................................................
A v e r a g e in s p e c tio n s p e r d a y .........................................................................................................................................................................

Second
in s p e c
tio n .

9
15 7
8

6
155
11

T o t a l p a id t o in s p e c to rs ......................................................................................................................................................................................
T o t a l p a id t o c h ie f in s p e c t o r .........................................................................................................................................................................

$628.00
230 .0 0

$642.00

A v e r a g e c o st o f e a c h in s p e c t io n ......................................................... , ...................................................................................................
T o t a l p a id t o t a b u la t in g fo rc e .....................................................................................................................................................................

858.00
.6 9
1 1 1 .0 0

6 4 2.0 0
.3 6
2 8 .0 0

COST OF INSPECTIONS.

It will be noticed that at the second inspection the agents were
able to work much more expeditiously and that the cost was strik
ingly less than at the first investigation.
CONDITIONS SHOWN BY INSPECTIONS.

The results of these investigations convinced the board that one of
the most important problems to be solved was that of “ factory
safety.” The majority of the establishments in the industry are no
longer located on the East Side, but have gradually moved into the
Fifth Avenue district. This change has secured for the workers, in
the main, more light, air, and cleanliness, but has involved a loss in
safety, owing to the general location of the shops in loft buildings.
!T he inspection of the Joint Board of Sanitary Control completed on Feb. 1, 1912,
showed a total of 1,829 shops.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

259

Of the 1,738 shops covered by the second inspection, 1,114 were
located in loft buildings, none of which were under six stories high.
Twenty-three thousand eight hundred and thirty-two employees were
working above the sixth floor, nearly 2,000 of them on the twelfth floor.
The difficulty of escape in case of fire from such lofty work places
would, under the best of circumstances, be extreme, and, as the table 1
shows, in a large number of cases the circumstances are distinctly
bad. In some instances fire escapes are absolutely lacking; in other
instances they are inadequate or of faulty construction, or access to
them is blocked, or they are so out of order as to be practically useless.
In 79 per cent (1,379) of the shops covered in the second inspection
the doors opened inward, in direct violation of the law, and, although
the lesson of the Triangle fire was only a few months old, 25 shops
were found in which the doors were locked during working hours.
What makes the matter much worse is that while the chances of
escape from a loft shop are not good the danger of fire is great. A
loft building consists of a series of floors or lofts, each occupying the
full space inclosed by the building walls, which its tenant divides
according to his needs. Without exception, the floor space of the
1,414 loft shops inspected was found to be “ divided and subdivided
into many sections by flimsy wooden, highly inflammable partitions,
offering ready material for flames and at the same time obstructing
passages to exits.” 12 Moreover, the floors were all of wood, often oil
soaked from machine drippings. The incoming and outgoing goods
were packed in huge pine boxes, shelves were piled with inflammable
goods, and paper boxes were strewn about the floors. The crowding
together of goods and machines, combined, with the wooden parti
tions, to increase the danger and diminish the chance of escape.
Some of these departments, where from 20 to 50 operatives are corralled
like so many sheep, have but one small and narrow door near one end of the
department. To this door some of the employees must run at least 30 to 40
feet through an aisle of 18 inches, between machines and tables, with boxes and
goods piled up in the way. In one shop a 14-inch passageway was found
through which 40 employees would have to pass in case of fire.3
LIGHT, VENTILATION, AND SANITARY CONDITIONS.

Other conditions found in these inspections, although less striking
than the fire risks, are perhaps even more objectionable, because they
operate continuously. Lack of care for the eyesight of the operatives
was found to be very general. The second inspection was made in
August when days are brightest, yet in 294 shops (16.9 per cent)
artificial light was necessary. A more general defect is the failure to
shade lights properly. In all shops artificial light is necessary during
at least a part of the winter days. The lights are often placed low,
1 See table showing fire protection,
2 First Annual Report of the Joint
2 Idem, p. 52.

p. 261.
Board of Sanitary Control, p. 94.

260

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

to bring them near the work, with the result that the employees’ eyes
are exposed to the full glare. In about one-fourth of the shops in
spected in August (466) some sort of a shade was found, but few of
these answered the purpose of protection from glare.
With regard to ventilation1 all the shops inspected in August con
formed to the legal requirement of 250 cubic feet of air space for
each person, but as few of them used any devices for changing the
air of the rooms, this compliance did not prevent very undesirable
conditions. These were not so bad as would have been the case in
the season of closed windows, yet “ the inspectors testify that the
heat and odor were very noticeable.” In 1,521 shops the irons were
heated by gas and the air was vitiated by the almost inevitable leak
age of this gas.
Sanitary conditions ranged from excellent to intolerable. A few
shops were found which went beyond the absolutely necessary re
quirements and added such desirable items as clean and well-kept
lunch rooms, emergency or hospital rooms and the like, but a greater
number were found which did not even reach the legal standard.
There was a very general lack of cuspidors (found in only 16 shops),
which is the more serious as tuberculosis is believed to be common
among the operatives. The table on page 261, relative to sanitation,
gives in detail the undesirable conditions found, but does not show
one highly objectionable feature—the lack in many cases of separate
accommodations for men and women.

The separation of the toilet accommodations for males and females leaves
much to be desired. In some of the shops (44) the water-closets are located
in the yards, and in many more (240) in the halls, and these are, as a rule,
common to both males and females. Many of the water-closets which are within
the shop are not properly separated, or, if so separated, the separation is not
adequate. Many of the closets are divided by dwarf partitions, which are very
flimsy, and no separate screening or approaches are provided for males and
females.2

The following tables3 give details as to the disposition of com
plaints, shops investigated, and conditions found:
D IS P O S IT IO N

O F

C O M P L A IN T S .

First Second
inspec inspec
tion.
tion.
Complaints received from union and others.....................................................................
Complaints investigated....................................................................................................
Inspections made................................................................................................................
Complaints found no cause for complaint........................................................................
Complaints found valid......................................................................................................
References to health department......................................................................................
References to labor department........................................................................................
References to building department...................................................................................
Shops condemned by Board of Sanitary Control.............................................................

21
20
20
2

18
14
2

1 See ta b le s h o w in g c o n d itio n s a s to a i r , v e n t il a t io n , a n d o v e r c r o w d in g , p . 2 6 1 .
3 F i r s t A n n u a l R e p o r t o f th e J o in t B o a r d o f S a n ita r y C o n tr o l, p . 6 4 .
8 Id e m , p p . 95 a n d 9 6 .

120
120
120
21

99
32
19l
4

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

261

NUMBER OF PERSONS WORKING IN SHOPS INVESTIGATED.
First Second
inspec inspec
tion.
tion.
Shops investigated.............................................................................................................
Buildings investigated.......................................................................................................
Persons found working......................................................................................................
Men working................................................................................................................
Women working..........................................................................................................

1 ,2 0 0

1,738
916
45,199
35,091
10,108

1 ,2 0 0

1,738
1,414
^169
49
134

533
36,941
29,563
7,378

LOCATION OF SHOPS.
Shops inspected..................................................................................................................
In loft buildings...........................................................................................................
In converted tenements..............................................................................................
In rear houses...............................................................................................................
In stores........................................................................................................................
In cellars.......................................................................................................................

1,076
1124
18

FIRE PROTECTION.
I n b u ild in g s w i t h n o fire es ca p es ............................................................................................................................................................
W i t h n o o r d e f e c tiv e ly p la c e d d r o p la d d e r s .............................................................................................................................
W i t h o b s tr u c te d o p e n in g s t o fire es ca p es .................................................. .................................................................................
T n b u ild in g s w i t h m o re t h a n o n e fire e s c a p e ...........................................................................................................................
W i t h d o o rs lo c k e d d u r in g d a y ...................................................................................................................................................................
W i t h d o o rs o p e n in g i n ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
W i t h n o o t h e r e x i t ! ..................................................................................................................................................................................................
W i t h fire escapes h a v in g s tr a ig h t la d d e r s ...................................................................................................................................
W i t h o u t fire b u c k e ts ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
I n w h ic h c h e m ic a l e x tin g u is h e r s w e re f o u n d .........................................................................................................................
I n w h ic h a u to m a tic s p rin k le rs w e re f o u n d ..............................................................................................................................
W i t h h a lls less t h a n 3 fe e t w i d e ...............................................................................................................................................................
W i t h h a lls a n d s ta ir w a y s d a r k ...............................................................................................................................................................
W i t h d e fe c tiv e tre a d s a n d r a ils .................................................................................................................................................................
H a v i n g fire d r i l l s ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

14
10 1
78
195
23
1 ,1 7 3
720
65

63
236
153
346
25
1 ,3 7 9
491

60
58
51
1

375
135
128
63
12 4
51
14

373
168
729
303

294
382
1 ,0 8 6
257

38
2
1,032
1,037
166
423

1,343
1,521
658

LIG H T A N D ILL U M IN A T IO N .
A r t i f i c i a l lig h t n e c e s s a ry i n d a y t i m e ................................................................................................................................................

Which have electricity.......................................................................................................................

W h i c h h a v e g a s ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
W h i c h h a v e gas a n d e le c t r ic i t y ................................................................................................................................................................

AIR, VENTILATION, AND OVERCROWDING.
Height of ceiling 8 feet or less............................................................................................
Air space less than 250 cubic feet per person...................................................................
Having gaslight...................................................................................................................
Having irons heated with gas............................................................................................
Having special devices for ventilation............................................................................
Heated by means of stoves................................................................................................
SANITATION.
With dirty walls, ceilings, and floors...............................................................................
Having joint water-closets.................................................................................................
Having water-closets in halls............................................................................................
Having water-closets in yards...........................................................................................
Where ratio of water-closets is inadequate (men’s less than 1 to 25 and women’s
less than 1 to 15).............................................................................................................
Where separation is defective............................................................................................
Where walls, ceilings, and floors of water-closet apartments are dirty..........................
With water-closets in bad condition.................................................................................
Where flushing and water-closets are defective...............................................................
1 Including

number of shops “ in rear houses. 1

144
101
111
12

142
6
413
400
60

347
114
240
44
73
106
345
85

262

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.
ESTABLISHMENT OF SANITARY STANDARDS.

In accordance with section 15 of the Protocol, the Joint Board of
Sanitary Control “ is empowered to establish standards of sanitary
conditions, * * * and the manufacturers and the unions obligate
themselves to maintain such standards to the best of their ability and
to the full extent of their power.”
The problem of establishing standards that would be just to the
employers, to the employees, and to the industry, and at the same
time conform to the higher ideals of sanitation and safety, required
no little thought on the part of the board, inasmuch as these stand
ards would have to be higher than those required by statute law.
Tentative plans for standardizing the work of the board were sub
mitted to the Manufacturers’ Association and to the unions, but final
standards for sanitation were not adopted until July 5,1911. Copies
were then sent to every shop in the industry, with a request that they
be posted in a conspicuous place.
An exact copy of the sanitary standards follows:
S a n it a r y S t a n d a r d s E s t a b l is h e d

J o in t B oard

S a n it a r y C ontrol .

1. No shop to be allowed in a cellar.
2. No shop to be allowed in rear houses or attic floors without special per
mission of the board.
3. Shops located in buildings two stories or more in height must have one or
more fire escapes.
4. All fire escapes to be provided with ladders to the roof of same house or to
an adjoining house; also with full-length drop ladders properly located and
adjusted.
5. In all shops which are not provided with automatic sprinklers there should
be kept a sufficient number of chemical extinguishers, or a sufficient number of
fire buckets, properly located and filled.
6. Special caretakers to be appointed in each shop for the care of the fire
buckets, and for their use in case of fire.
7. All openings and exits to fire escapes to be left unobstructed by tables,
machines, boxes, partitions, and iron bars.
8. No doors to be locked during working hours.
9. No smoking to be permitted in workshop.
10. Conspicuous signs to be placed throughout the shop, marking location and
direction of exits and fire escapes.
11. Fireproof receptacles, lined with tin and having a tin cover, to be pro
vided, in sufficient numbers, for rubbish.
12. Halls and stairways leading from shops to be adequately lighted by
natural or artificial light.
13. Stairs to be provided with secure handrails and safe treads.
14. Sufficient window space to be provided for each shop, so that all parts of
the shop be well lighted during the hours from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m.
15. Where gas illumination is used, arc lights or incandescent mantles should
be used.
16. All lights to be well shaded, to be placed above operatives, and not too
near them.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY. 2 6 3

17. At least 400 cubic feet of space, exclusive of bulky furniture and mate
rials, should be provided for every person within the shop.
18. The shop should be thoroughly aired before and after work hours, and
during lunch hour, by opening windows and doors.
19. No coal should be used for direct heating of irons, and whenever stoves
are used for heating shops they should be surrounded by metal sheet at least
5 feet high.
20. Walls and ceilings of shops and water-closet apartments should be cleaned
as often as necessary, and kept clean.
21. Floors of shops and of water-closet apartments to be scrubbed weekly,
swept daily, and kept free of refuse.
22. A separate water-closet apartment shall be provided for each sex, with
solid partitions to extend from floor to ceiling, and with separate vestibules
and doors.
23. Water-closets to be adequately flushed and kept clean.
24. A special caretaker to be designated by the employer to the care of the
shop and water-closet apartments.
25. A sufficient number of water-supplied washbasins to be provided in con
venient and light locations within the shop.
26. Suitable hangers should be provided for the street clothes of the em
ployees, and separate dressing rooms to be provided wherever women are
working.
27. Water-closet apartments, dressing rooms, wash rooms, and lunch rooms to
be properly lighted, illuminated, ventilated, cleaned, and kept clean.
28. All seats to have backs.
ENFORCEMENT OF SANITARY STANDARDS.

It soon became evident that without means of enforcing standards
permanent improvement in sanitary conditions could not be secured.
After considerable discussion as to methods of procedure and con
ferences with the State commissioner of labor, city superintendent of
buildings, sanitary superintendent of the health department, and a
representative of the fire department, the following routine of en
forcement was decided upon:

1. Defects in sanitary conditions are referred to the health department when
ever conditions demand immediate action and are a menace to health. The
board endeavors to remedy other sanitary defects by letters to the owners of
the shops and by personal interviews.
2. The same procedure is adopted with regard to fire protection, though, while
legislation has been pending, no reference has been made to any department,
with the exception of the 55 cases inspected by the board’s chief inspector in
March and referred to the city departments for action.
3. Where flagrant violations of the labor law have been discovered, a report
is sent to the labor department for action.
4. For nonconformity with the board’s standards, the following method of
procedure is employed:
(a) After the first inspection a notice is sent to the owner.
(b) After the second inspection the inspector has a personal interview with
the owner, explaining the exact defects and how to remedy them.
(c) If there is no compliance as a result of these two efforts, any shop be
longing to the association is reported to that body. In case of shops outside of
the asociation, the matter is referred to the board for action and ultimately to
the unions for enforcement by them through its own member.

BULLETIN OF THE .BUREAU OF LABOR,

264

THE SANITARY STRIKE.

It is of special interest to note the methods employed in “ cleaning
up the industry.” The usual process is for the business agent of the
union to report to his superior officer in the union the conditions of
the establishments in his particular district. If he finds an establish
ment which has not been visited by the inspectors of the Board of
Sanitary Control to be in an insanitary condition, a report is made
in writing to the district officer in charge of the union’s affairs in that
particular district; this officer in turn notifies the Board of Sanitary
Control.
The Board of Sanitary Control instructs one of its inspectors to
visit and report on the condition of said establishment.
The following illustrates a bona fide case:
R eport

of t h e

I n spe c t o r

of t h e

B oard

S a n it a r y C ontrol .

On investigating the shop o f ---------, I beg to report the following conditions
existing thereat:
(1) That the yard hopper water-closets in the first and rear yards of prem
ises are obstructed with excreta, are not properly flushed, the pipes frozen, and
the water-closet apartments overfilled with dirt.
(2) That the yard of the second rear house is dirty with offensive refuse.
(3) That the rain leaders on second and first rear houses are obstructed
with ice, causing overflowing therefrom and dampness in building.
(4) That the stairs and floor of balconies of rear houses are insecure and
unsafe.
(5) That the floor of shop is insecure and unsafe.
(6) That the floor of shop is littered with rubbish and offensive refuse and
that walls and ceiling of shop are dirty and offensive and have not been white
washed for more than a year.
(7) That the glass panes of windows are dim and dirty.
(8) That there are no cuspidors nor receptacles for storage of waste and
refuse.
(9) That the old disused brick ironing oven in the southeast corner of the
shop is broken, dilapidated, crumbling, partly full of dirt and offensive refuse,
and is a source of dust and dirt.
(10) That the cast-iron sink on premises is old, corroded, and leaky.
(11) That the wooden slats of the floors of outside stair balconies are inse
cure and unsafe; there are no other means for escape from fire.
It is my opinion that this shop is not a fit place in which to work. I therefore
recommend that this shop be vacated.

Upon receiving this report the board, after due deliberation,
declared the establishment insanitary and unfit for occupancy or
working purposes. The unions, the Manufacturers’ Association, and
the contractor who occupied the premises were notified to that effect.
The contractor was also requested to vacate the premises.
The unions then ordered a “ sanitary strike ” and this establish
ment was subsequently vacated. The contractors engaged another
shop which, upon inspection by the board, proved to be in excellent
condition.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

265

REPORTS AND RECORDS OE INSPECTION.

The following actual record of an inspection will, in a measure,
convey to the reader the condition of “attic shops” on the lower East
Side of New York. It may be of interest to note that there are no
longer “ cellar shops,” nor has there been any since the second in
spection, the “ sanitary strike ” method having accomplished their
elimination.
The following exhibits show the manner and process of an inspec
tion and report: Exhibit 1 shows record of an inspection; exhibit 2
shoves record of defects; exhibit 3 shows standard list of defects;
exhibit -1 shows written report of inspector.
E x h ib it 1. — R ecord of in spection .
JOINT BOARD OF SANITARY CONTROL.
Record Card No...................................Copy..................................Certificate No.
Street------- No. 61 FI. 2 Boro. M . Firm-------- &-------- .
Member of.............................Contractor for.........................................Address

Building converted
Stories Fr. 2 & Attic
Fire-Escapes 1
3 Location
Front
4
5 Drop Ladders no
6 Exits Clear no
7 Other Exits Yes
8 Fire Buckets no
9 Extinguishers no
10 Fire Hose no
11 Sprinklers
12 Drill no Card Yes
Elevators no
13 Hoistways
no
14
15 Doors in Locked no
16 Halls-Width 6
17 Stairs No. 1 Width
2' 8*
18 Material wood
19 Treads Fair Rails
1
2

Bad

20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Halls Light Yes
Dress-Rooms no
Sinks 1 Basins
Windows No. 5
Shop Height 9 \'
Width 19'8" Length
82' 5"
Mech. Ventil no
Artif Light Day no
Gas
Prot. Glare no
Power Foot
Heat Steam
Irons Heated by Gas
W. C. Male 1
W. C. Female 1
Material Floor cement
Location hall & yard
Separation Yes
Recep. Rubbish no

In s p e c tio n

2 619
3 T.

D a te

M a le

818111
2(9112

7
6

iimiu

4 ..................................................
5 ..................................................

Female
1

6 ......................................................
7 ..................................................
8 .......................................................
9......................................................
10...........................................................
11...........................................................
12...........................................................

D i s t r i c t ................................................................................
D e fe c t C a r d ....................................................................

See defect card & report forwarded

Reference...........
Shop Committee.

E x h ib it 2. — R ecord of d efects .

JOINT BOARD OF SANITARY CONTROL.
Defect Card No..................
Record Card No..................
Street------No. 61
FI. 2
Boro. M
Firm------- & -------Class.......... District......... Reference.............. Committee........... Inspector T
Date 2(9(12*189
No drop ladders........................................................ Order given, date...................................................
7 Exits to fire escapes obstructed.................................. Reinspected............................................................
10 No fire buckets..........................................................
IS Doors i n . , ................................................................
18 Rails insecure ...........................................................
19 No dressing room ......................................................
25 No protection from glare ..........................................
27 Foot power used ........................................................
floor of w. c. dirty ......................................
SI Walls
35 Bowl of w. c. dirty .......................................... ..........
38 No receptacles for rubbish .........................................
42 Windows of shop dirty ..............................................
See special report for other conditions existing ..........

31326°—Bull. 98—12------18

266

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR,
E xhibit 3.— L is t o f sta n d a rd defects.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

No fire escapes.
Insufficient fire escapes.
Fire escapes with straight ladders.
No drop ladders.
Drop ladders too short.
Drop ladders improperly placed.
Exits to fire escapes obstructed.
Exits from bottom of fire escapes
inadequate.
9. Aisles too narrow.
10. No fire buckets.
11. Empty fire buckets.
12. Insufficient number of fire buckets.
13. Doors IN.
14. Doors locked.
15. Halls dark.
16. Stairs dark.
17. Treads insecure.
18. Rails insecure.
19. No dressing room.
20. Dark or improper dressing room.
21. Dirty dressing room.
22. Insufficient washing facilities.

23. Dirty sinks or basins.
24. Artificial light during day.
25. No protection from glare.
26. Gas lights too near operatives.
27. Foot power used.
28. Insufficient number of water closets.
29. Improper separation.
30. Wood floor of w. c. apt.
31. Dirty walls and floor of w. c. apt.
32. Unventilated w. c. apt.
33. Dark water-closet apt.
34. Flush out of order or improper.
35. Bowl of w. c. dirty or broken.
36. Shop in cellar.
37. Shop on attic floor.
38. No receptacles for rubbish.
39. Ceiling of shop dirty.
40. Walls of shop dirty.
41. Floor of shop dirty.
42. Windows of shop dirty.
43. Seats of water closets missing or
broken.

E x h ib it 4.— W ritte n rep o rt of in spector.

Dr. George M. P rice ,

C hairm an, E x ecu tive C om m ittee.

F ebruary 10th , 1912.

D ear Sir : I have the honor to report that on February 9th, 1912, I inspected
the shop of Messrs.---------& ----------, No. 6 1 ------Street, and found the facts to
be as follows:
The said premises consist of a two-story basement and attic converted build
ing—the basement a plumbing shop; 1st floor a carpenter shop, occupied by
lessee of building; and 3d floor occupied by Messrs. --------- & ---------, as a
shop to manufacture cloaks, suits and skirts.
The water-closet accommodations for --------- and ---------employees are one
water-closet in hall on 2d floor for females; and one water-closet in the yard
for men. As the hall on first floor leading to yard water-closet was found ob
structed with lumber on this inspection, as well as on several previous in
spections, the yard water-closet is not accessible for men employed in --------& ---------’s shop, with the result that both men and women use the one watercloset on the 2d floor hall. This closet and floor of water-closet apartment
was in a filthy condition.
Floor and stairs in hall in a dirty condition. Handrail of stairs broken, loose
and dangerous.
The fire escape of this building is an iron balcony on the 2d floor extending
and connecting with premises No. 63, a similar building. This balcony, or
so-called fire escape, has no drop ladders. The shop of --------- & --------- is
not provided with fire buckets; and is heated by a coal stove which is not
protected by a sheet-metal guard.
The floor of the shop is dirty and windows leading to fire escape are ob
structed by machines.
This building is very much neglected by lessee as to sanitary conditions, and
in my opinion not a fit place to manufacture cloaks, suits and skirts,
Respectfully,
_____________

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN N EW YORK CITY.

267

SANITARY CERTIFICATES.

As a reward for compliance with the sanitary standards required
by the board, a plan was adopted of furnishing “ sanitary certifi
cates ” to those who have improved the general conditions of their
establishments. These “ sanitary certificates ” are granted for a
period of six months and are revocable at the pleasure of the board
for a serious violation of its sanitary standards.
The demand for certificates comes from owners who would nat
urally be expected to keep their establishments in a superior condi
tion, but as soon as it became generally known to the small owners
that certificates would be granted, there was a very considerable
demand for them.
It was pointed out to the applicants that in conforming to the
requirements of the board many changes, some very radical, must
be made, all of which required time and in many instances negotia
tions with owners of buildings. This method has proved successful
inasmuch as the owners have volunteered to make such improve
ments as the board suggests.
In the case of refractory owners, however, the union has been able
to bring them to terms through the sanitary strike.
In no instance has the union failed to bring about satisfactory
results, evidently having complete control of the situation.
The number of certificates granted to date is 312, or about 17 per
cent of the total number of establishments inspected.
A copy of the sanitary certificate follows:
No.
SANITARY CERTIFICATE
OP THE

JOINT BOARD OF SANITARY CONTROL
IN THE

CLOAK, SUIT & SKIRT INDUSTRY OF NEW YORK
(Under the Protocol of September 2,1910)
This is to certify that the shop of...........................................................
Located at.........................................Floor..................Borough of.................
has been inspected and found to conform with the
SANITARY STANDARDS OF THIS BOARD
| seal]

This certificate is good only for six months
from date of issue and is revocable by the
Board for cause.

268

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

In considering the number of certificates issued it must be borne in
mind that to meet the fire standards of the board structural changes
in buildings must be made, and these can be made only by the owner
of the premises.1 Again, it must be Understood that as soon as an in
spection is made the board classifies the results. The classification is
as follows:
Class A.—Establishments that are entitled to a certificate, having
complied with the standards established by the board.
Class B.—Establishments that are candidates for a certificate
when some very minor changes are made in compliance with the in
structions of the board to meet the standard.
Class C.—Establishments ‘that are considered considerably below
Class B, which have many structural changes to make, general sani
tary conditions to be improved, and lavatory and sanitary conven
iences to be installed.
On February 15, 1912, the number of establishments in Class A
was 312 and in Class B 508. It is confidently expected by the board
that at least 400 certificates will be issued to establishments in Class
B prior to March 15, 1912. The remaining 1,009 establishments, in
Class C, are at a disadvantage in many cases, as structural changes
must be made and official authority to make such changes must be
obtained. In some cases, however, removals are anticipated, which
will obviate the need not only of structural changes but of general
sanitary improvements.
EDUCATING THE EMPLOYERS.

Apart from the educational value of the sanitary certificate, its
possession has come to be regarded as a badge of honor among
employers.
It }vas perfectly obvious that among the more than 1,600 owners
of establishments in the industry there were many who did not need
a board of sanitary control to enlighten them as to the necessity
and value of caring for the safety and health of their employees.
However, a large number were more or less indifferent to the safety
and health of their employees.
To this class the board has directed its educational work by means
of (a) personal interviews, (b) sanitary certificates, (c) education
through trade journals, and (d) education through bulletins.
When the shop is under investigation by an inspector, personal
interviews are had for the purpose of explaining the nature and
character of the work of the board, tactful instruction being offered
as to the value and advantage of keeping an establishment in a proper
1 In the cases of the members of the association its counsel has already secured such
changes in 15 cases out of 38, and 8 more members have, at the termination of their
leases, removed to better quarters.

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY.

269

sanitary condition; defects are pointed out and inexpensive methods
of improvement are suggested for the benefit of both employer and
employees.
EDUCATING THE EMPLOYEES.

No inconsiderable part of the work of the Joint Board of Sanitary
Control has been to educate the large mass of workers. This has
been no easy task, as those engaged in the industry are very largely
recent immigrants, unfamiliar not only with sanitary requirements
but with the cooperative effort necessary in connection with such an
agreement as the Protocol. The bulk of the workers in the industry
are Russian, Galician, Roumanian, and Polish Hebrews. The great
est influx to the trade in recent years has come from the Italians, who
constitute about 15 per cent of the workers in the industry, but prom
ise to become even a larger percentage in the near future. The per
centage of native-born Americans of foreign parentage has increased
during the last few years.
The general average of intelligence among the workers is increas
ing rapidly, but never have such strides been made as during the past
year and a half. This has been brought about through the workings
of the Protocol, as much perhaps by the Board of Grievances as by
the Joint Board of Sanitary Control.
One of the most potent factors in the educational work of the Joint
Board of Sanitary Control is the bulletin, issued from time to time,
setting forth the importance of sanitation. The following excerpts
from Bulletin No. 2 will serve as a good illustration of this work of
the board:
“ Safe

and

S a n it a r y S h o p s . ”

TO THE WORKERS.

The Joint Board of Sanitary Control in the cloak, suit, and skirt industry
has been organized for the express purpose to secure and insure safety and
sanitary shops for the workers in the trade.
Health is the most precious possession of man. Health is the only capital
of the workingman. Without health, the workingman is of no use to his em
ployer. Without health, life to the employee is not worth living. Therefore,
the preservation of health is the most important consideration of the worker.
Therefore, join in securing safe and sanitary shops, in order that your life may
be prolonged and your health be preserved.
The workplace plays a most important influence upon the life and health
of the worker.' In his workplace, the worker spends over one-third -of his life.
His life and health are influenced by the construction, by safety from fire, by
the light and illumination, by the air and ventilation, and by the sanitary care
and cleanliness of the shop.
Insist that your shop should have a sanitary certificate from us. You will
then be assured that your shop is safe and sanitary.

270

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

Workingmen have a right and duty to demand from their employers safe and
sanitary shops.
But the employers have a right to demand from the workingmen themselves,
that they should be clean and should help the employers to keep the shop clean.
Let the workers prove to their employers that they not only demand sanitary
and clean shops, but appreciate them and will help to keep them clean.
Demand cleanliness from your employers, from your fellow workers, but
demand it first of all from yourself.
a f e w d o n ’t s .

Don't spit on floor.
Don’t smoke in shop.
Don’t throw matches on floor.
Don’t throw paper and rubbish on floor.
Don’t eat in shop.
Don’t be afraid of air from an open window.
Don’t work too near the gas lamp, and don’t have the light shine in your eyes.
Have it hang over your left shoulder.
Don’t bend too much while at work.
Don’t deface, soil, or mark the walls.
Don’t fail to flush the water-closets.
Don’t fail to wash your hands before and after work.
Don’t blame others for your own faults.
Don’t behave in your shops otherwise than you would in your parlor.
Don’t do anything in your shop that you would not wish your parents or
children to see or do.
The Joint Board of Sanitary Control will make inspections of shops on the
complaint of any worker. All you have to do is to write us a postal, which will
be supplied by your shop sanitary committee.
The Joint Board of Sanitary Control will make thorough general inspections
of all the shops in the city twice a year, in August and February.
The Joint Board of Sanitary Control is not a partisan body. It consists of
two representatives of the unions, nominated by the joint executive board of
the cloakmakers’ unions; of two representatives of the Manufacturers’ Protec
tive Association, and three representatives of the public.
The expenses of running the office and doing the actual work are paid jointly
by the unions and the Manufacturers’ Protective Association.
Let every shop chairman send us his name and those of two assistants who
will constitute the “ shop sanitary committee ” of the shop.
#
Remember, workers, this is a movement not by the public, not by the manu
facturers alone, but a movement—your own, in cooperation with the public and
the manufacturers. If it fails, you must share the responsibility. If it suc
ceeds (as it must, if you aid) you will share in the credit. Now is the time
to show your real appreciation of what your union is trying to do for you and
make your life worth living.

APPENDIX.—CONTRACT SHOP AGREEMENT.

The following is a copy of an agreement known as the Contract
Shop Agreement, entered into by certain manufacturers and the
Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union of New York City:
M e m o b a n d t jm o f A g r e e m e n t made by and between--------------- —, composing
the firm o f ------------------- , having its business a t ------------------- , in the Bor
ough of Manhattan, city of New York, party of the first part, hereinafter

CONCILIATION IN CLOAK INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY. 2 7 1

called the Firm, and The Joint Board of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union
as attorney in fact for the following Locals of the International Ladies’ Gar
ment Workers’ Union, namely; Cloak Operators’ Union, No. 1; Cloak and Suit
Tailors, No. 9; Amalgamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Association, No. 10;
Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union, of Brownsville, No. 11; New York Reefer
Makers’ Union, No. 17; Skirt Makers’ Union, No. 23; Cloak and Skirt Pressers’
Union, No. 35; Button-Hole Makers’ Union, of New York, Local No. 64; Cloak
and Suit Pressers’ of Brownsville, No. 68; party of the second part, hereinafter
called the Union, to w it;
In consideration of the sum of one ($1) dollar, each to the other in hand
paid before the signing of this agreement, and in consideration of the mutual
promises herein made, the parties hereto agree as follows:
I. The said Firm hereby engages the Union to perform all the tailoring,
operating, pressing, finishing, cutting, and buttonhole-making work required
to be done by the Firm in its cloak and suit business, during the period com
mencing with the date of this agreement and terminating------------------- and
the Union agrees to perform said work in a good and workmanlike manner.
II. During the continuance of this agreement operators and finishers shall
be paid in accordance with the annexed price list.
The following is the scale of wages for week hands:
Cutters, not less than $25 per week.
Skirt cutters, not less than $21 per week.
Jacket pressers, not less than $21 per week.
Underpressers, not less than $18 per week.
Skirt pressers, not less than $19 per week.
Skirt underpressers, not less than $15 per week.
Part pressers, not less than $13 per week.
Reefer pressers, not less than $18 per week.
Reefer underpressers, not less than $14 per week.
Sample makers, not less than $22 per week.
Sample skirt makers, not less than $22 per week.
Skirt basters, not less than $14 per week.
Skirt finishers, not less than $10 per week.
Buttonhole makers, Class A, a minimum of $1.20 per hundred button
holes ; Class B, a minimum of 80 cents per hundred buttonholes.
III. A working week shall consist of 50 hours in 6 working days.
The following shall be the regular hours of labor: On the first 5 working
days of the week, from 8 a. m. to 12 m., from 1 p. m. to 6 p. m.; Saturday,
from 8 a. m. to 1 p. m.
IY. No overtime work shall be permitted between the 15th day of November
and the 15th day of January and during the months of June and JuTy.
During the rest of the year employees may be required to work overtime, pro
vided all employees of the Firm as well as all the employees of the outside con
tractors of the Firm are engaged to the full capacity of the factories. No
overtime work shall be permitted on Saturday nor on any day for more than
two and a half hours, nor before 8 a. m. or after 8 p. m. For overtime work
employees shall receive double the usual pay.
Y. No contracting or subcontracting shall be permitted by the Firm inside
of its factory, and no operator or finisher shall employ more than one helper.
YI. No subdivision or section work shall be permitted in operating or fin
ishing.
YII. No employee shall be required to work on any of the 10 legal holidays.
All legal holidays shall be paid for. The refraining from work on the 1st of
May shall not be considered a breach of this contract.

272

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

T ill. The Firm is to furnish to all employees, free of charge, sewing ma
chines driven by electric power, which are to be in charge of competent ma
chinists, and all requisites for work, such as needles, cotton, silk, oil, straps, etc.
IX. Cutters, pressers, sample makers, skirt basters, and skirt finishers must
be paid by the week and not by the piece.
X. The Firm may employ outside contractors, provided the contractors em
ploy members of the Union. The Firm agrees to pay the wages of any and all
of the employees of its contractors should any of its contractors fail to pay
said wages in full.
XI. Work shall be distributed equally between the inside employees and
those working for outside contractors, and equally among the inside employees
as far as practicable.
XII. At the commencement of the season, after prices have been adjusted,
the Firm shall pay to its employees the difference in prices for work on new
styles made prior to the adjustment. A shop committee shall, together with
the Firm, adjust prices on new styles, reference to be had to previous price list.
XIII. The Union shall have the privilege to have a shop delegate selected by
the persons employed in the factory, who is to act as their representative in
their dealings with the Firm. A duly authorized officer or representative of
the Union shall have free access to the factory for the purpose of communicating
with the employees. Such visits shall not interfere with or disturb the work of
the employees.
XIV. No work shall be given to employees to be done at their homes.
XV. The Union shall be credited with all the work performed by its several
members, and payment to its members shall be considered payment to the
Union, provided payment is made in accordance with this agreement.
XYI. Only members of the respective locals above named shall be employed
by the Firm to do the said work.
XVII. In case of any dispute there shall be no stoppage of work until the
matter in dispute shall have been settled by arbitration, which must take place
within three days after the arising of the dispute.
XVIII. Wages shall be paid in cash to pieceworkers on each Monday for work
done up to previous Saturday; to week workers on Saturdays.
XIX. The Firm is not to enter into individual agreements with any-of its
said employees, nor shall any cash or other form of security be accepted from
them.
XX. Neither the Firm nor any of its contractors shall require any of its
employees (nor shall any employee be permitted) to do work on orders placed
by Firms or contractors whose employees are on strike in the city of New
York or elsewhere, nor shall the Firm sell any goods to such firms.
XXI. The prices for piecework under this contract are based on the propo
sition that the average pieceworker shall be able to make 75 cents per hour.
And shall the prices for the piecework now agreed upon fail to produce that
wage to the average pieceworker the prices shall be subject to revision, in order
to promote uniformity in the trade.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN PRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND.
BY HELEN L. SUMNER, PH . D.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.

Special courts for the settlement of disputes which arise by reason
of labor contracts between employers and workingmen, though
unknown in English-speaking countries, are common on the Conti
nent of Europe. Their essential purpose is to settle, by conciliation
whenever possible and by legal judgment when conciliation fails,
but in any event cheaply, quickly, and (perhaps most important of
all) by means of a court composed in part or in whole of elected rep
resentatives of the two classes, all individual legal cases which arise
from the relations of employer and employed. In some countries,
however, the industrial courts are also used, directly or indirectly,
for the settlement of collective disputes. In such cases they serve
in a double capacity—first, as legal tribunals, and, second, as boards
of arbitration.
The idea of such courts originated in France, where the first
council of prudhommes (corneil de prud'hommes) was formed at
Lyon in 1806. The system gradually spread over France, and Ger
many, in annexing the left bank of the Rhine in 1815 and AlsaceLorraine in 1872, retained the councils of prudhommes of those
Provinces. It was not, however, until 1890 that Germany passed a
general law providing for the establishment of industrial courts
throughout the Empire. Meanwhile, as early as 1859, Belgium in
stituted a system very similar to that of France, and 10 years later,
in 1869, Austria established a series of courts which, however, prob
ably owing to defects in the law, have never been as successful as
those of France and Germany. Geneva, which established an indus
trial court on the French model in 1882, was the first of the Swiss
Cantons to adopt the idea. In 1910, however, there were only seven
Cantons which did not have some kind of legislation upon this
subject. In Italy similar courts, which are empowered to deal with
collective disputes also, were established by a law of 1893, and in
1908 Spain joined the ranks of countries which provide special
legal machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes.
There are, roughly speaking, three types of industrial courts—first,
that of France, in which only employers and workers have a part,

273

274

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

the number of members being even; second, that of Germany, in
which the president is neither an employer nor a worker, and the
number of members is odd; and, third, that of Switzerland as ex
emplified by Basel and Zurich, which is a simple adaptation of the
ordinary court with the addition of special advisers to the judge.
This latter plan, however, is not the only one in force in Switzerland.
The first industrial courts formed there were on the French model
and later the German system was instituted in four Cantons—Lu
cerne, Bern, St. Gall, and Neuchatel. Two Cantons, Neuchatel
and Solothum, have so revised their laws within recent years as to
change from the French, the first to the German and the second
to the Swiss system. At the present time,1 indeed, only Geneva and
Yaud have industrial courts based on the French model. The
Geneva court, moreover, has developed along independent lines and
forms a unique institution similar to the councils of prudhommes of
France in its judicial functions and to the industrial courts of
Germany in its relation to the formation of trade agreements and to
the settlement of collective disputes.
So far as their functions as judicial tribunals are concerned the
most radical difference between these courts lies in their composi
tion. In France both sides, employers and workmen, are equally
represented, and the president is chosen alternately from each,
whereas in the German courts both sides are also equally repre
sented but the president is chosen from outside, and must not belong
to either class. Under the one plan the number of judges is even and
under the other odd. In France the president himself represents
one side, and equality is supposed to be secured by giving first one
class and then the other the advantage of the presidency. In voting,
however, the president stands on a par with the other judges, and in
the event of a tie the case must be retried by the same court with
the addition of a justice of the peace brought in to break the dead
lock. In Germany, on the other hand, the president is nonpartisan.
It was proposed, at the time of the revision of the French law in
1907, to make the justice of the peace a regular member of the court
and its presiding officer, but this idea was vigorously combated on
the ground that it gave the balance of power to the very officer whose
authority in such matters the councils of prudhommes were insti
tuted to supersede. In the debate on the German bill, however, this
question of the presidency of the court, which roused hot discussion
in France, was scarcely mentioned. It appears, indeed, to have
been generally agreed from the beginning that the president should
be neither an employer nor a workman, and that the number of
lrrhis report is based upon investigations made in Europe in 19X0; it was completed
before June 1, 1911. Tbe discussion relates, therefore, to legislation in force in 1910, and
the statistics given are the latest available in that year.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 2 7 5

members of the court, including the president, should be odd. The
French system thus yields the court up wholly to the classes con
cerned, while the German system gives a third party the balance of
power.
The Swiss system, which originated in Basel City in 1889 and is
now in force also in Fribourg, Solothurn, and Zurich, is similar to
the German in that the court is composed of an employer, a worker,
and a president who is neither. It differs, however, in that the
president must be a judge of the ordinary civil court and that he de
cides cases merely with the advice of one employer and one work
man assessor specially called for each separate dispute. These Swiss
courts, indeed, are more closely related to the ordinary judicial sys
tem than are the French or German courts. The composition of the
Geneva courts is like that of the French in that it is made up wholly
of employers and workers, but is like that of the German in that the
number of members is odd. The president and vice president of
each group preside alternately over a court composed half of em
ployer and half of workman prudhommes.
Industrial courts are usually divided into sections which have
jurisdiction over disputes arising in certain groups or categories of
trades or occupations, and a certain number of members are elected
from each of these occupation groups or categories. The Paris eourt
is divided into 5 sections and some 30 categories, the Berlin court into
8 sections, the Basel court into 10, the Zurich court into 8, and the
Geneva court into 12 sections and about 90 categories. The number
of members elected is usually large. The Berlin court has 420
members and that of Geneva about the same number.
The qualifications for membership are much the same in France
and Germany. Members must be at least 30 years of age, must be
citizens in good standing, and must be actually employed in an indus
trial occupation over which the court has jurisdiction. Trade-union
officials who give their entire time to the work of their offices are
therefore excluded. Nevertheless, in both countries and also in
Switzerland many trade-union officials serve also as assessors of in
dustrial courts, and practically all workmen members belong to
labor organizations. In France, but not in Germany, former em
ployers or workmen who have not been out of their industrial oc
cupation for more than five years are allowed to serve. In France,
moreover, but not in Germany, it is required that candidates for this
office shall have lived and worked at their occupations within the
district of the court for at least three years prior to the election. In
Germany and in Zurich members may not refuse to serve except upon
certain special and well-defined grounds, and in France members who
have refused to act or have resigned are not eligible to reelection
within three years thereafter. In France members are elected for

276

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

six years, in Germany for not more than six years, in Basel for three,
and in Geneva for four. Members are always eligible to reelection.
Women may be and sometimes are elected to membership in the
French courts.
The right of voting for members is more strictly limited in France
than in Germany or Switzerland. In the former country only those
persons may vote who have been engaged for three years in an indus
try which is under the jurisdiction of the court and have lived
for one year within its district. It is obvious that as workmen are
much the more mobile, both in occupation and in residence, this
restriction limits the franchise for them far more than it does for
employers. In Germany it is only necessary that a man- shall be
employed in such an industry and shall live in the district at the time
of the election. In Switzerland any employer or workman of an
occupation included in the list of those under the jurisdiction of the
court, who is a legal voter in a Canton, is usually entitled to vote in an
industrial court election. Women vote in France and in Geneva, but
not in Germany, in Basel, or in Zurich. No person may vote in more
than one group.
Employers and workers always vote separately. The elections in
France, however, are much more complicated than in Germany or
Switzerland, owing to the division of the voters into categories ac
cording to the character of their occupations and to the compulsory
preparation of voting lists for each one of these categories. In Ger
many registration of voters is not required by the law, but may be
provided for by the local regulations. The proportional election sys
tem is frequently used. In Basel, Zurich, and Geneva separate voting
lists are prepared for the employers and for the workers of each
group of occupations.
One of the most difficult problems which arises in connection with
these courts is the establishment of rules for distinguishing em
ployers from workmen. Usually the distinction is obvious, but
there are always many puzzling cases, such as that of a foreman who
himself is a wage earner but at the same time hires subordinate
labor. In France the performance of manual labor is made the
criterion, the foreman who merely supervises and looks after ma
chinery being classed as an employer, while the foreman who takes
part in the actual labor of manufacture is classed as a worker. In
Germany, on the other hand, the amount of compensation is made
the criterion, foremen and directors whose yearly compensation
exceeds 2,000 marks ($476) being classed as employers, while those
whose yearly compensation is less than 2,000 marks are classed as
workers. Neither plan seems to be entirely satisfactory, and both
are very difficult of application, for neither the exact functions nor
the exact compensation of a foreman are easy to ascertain. In

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 2 7 7

France, however, the third category of employees in part meets the
difficulty. In Basel and Zurich the law simply provides that higher
employees, such as directors, confidential clerks, foremen and over
seers, shall be classed as employers. In France and Germany the
members of the managing committees of joint-stock companies are
also classed as employers. Home workers and small contractors may
also be difficult of classification. In both France and Germany, how
ever, it has been decided that home workers who furnish all their
own materials are independent producers and are either not subject
to the jurisdiction of the industrial courts or, if they employ labor,
are subject as employers. In Geneva a person who is in charge of job
work for another and himself employs assistance is considered as an
employer and not as a worker.
The jurisdiction of the industrial courts of France and Germany
extends not only over disputes between employers and workers, but
also over disputes between workmen who are hired by the same em
ployer. The latter class of disputes, however, are not mentioned in the
laws of Basel, Zurich, or Geneva. In all five jurisdictions the exist
ence of a labor contract of some kind is essential, but the idea of a
contract is loosely interpreted to cover any relationship between wage
givers and wage receivers. An independent worker, however, as, for
example, a cobbler working for the retail trade, is not included.
In France and Germany there are special rules for the settlement
of cases which would normally be brought before the industrial
courts but which arise in districts where they do not exist. The
Basel and Geneva courts have jurisdiction over the entire Cantons,
while that of Zurich is limited to the city. In France, Germany,
and Geneva the jurisdiction of other courts is entirely excluded by
that of the industrial courts, but in Basel and Zurich, on the request
of both parties, any industrial dispute may be tried by the ordinary
courts. In Zurich, however, parties are expressly forbidden to enter
into agreements in advance, to submit disputes to the ordinary in
stead of to the industrial tribunal.
The French courts have jurisdiction only over the particular
trades mentioned in the decrees under which they are organized,
whereas those of Germany, unless specially limited to certain trades,
have jurisdiction over all industrial employments. In some instances
courts have been established for a single occupation, as the mining
courts of Germany and the court in St. Gall, Switzerland, which is
formed for the famous embroidery industry of that Canton. The
decree organizing a French court may extend its jurisdiction to
commercial employments, but in Germany only the purely industrial
workers in such businesses are included. For other employees there
are special courts called mercantile courts (Kaufmannsgerichte),
loosely connected with the industrial courts (Gewerbegeriehte).

278

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

In Basel, Zurich, and Geneva commercial occupations form sepa
rate sections of the courts. The jurisdiction of the German courts
is further limited by that of a similar system of guild courts for
the settlement of disputes which arise between the members of
guilds and their working people. In France and Geneva all public
employees are excluded from the industrial courts, whereas in Ger
many only those are excluded who are under the control of the mili
tary and naval departments. In Geneva and Neuchatel, Switzer
land, persons engaged in domestic service, and in Geneva persons
engaged in agriculture, are included. The occupational jurisdiction
of the Geneva councils of prudhommes, indeed, is wider than that of
any other industrial court.
The amount in dispute sometimes limits the jurisdiction. The
French councils of prudhommes may decide cases the value of which
is under 1,000 francs ($193). The industrial arbitration court of
Basel, however, is limited to cases in which the amount in dispute is
under 300 francs ($57.90), and that of Zurich to cases in which the
amount in dispute is under 200 francs ($38.60). In Yaud, Swit
zerland, the limit is 3,000 francs ($579) and in Fribourg 600 francs
($115.80). No such limitation, however, exists in Germany or in
Geneva.
The great majority of complaints brought before the industrial
courts relate to wage payments, but discharge without notice is also
a frequent cause of disputes. In Berlin in 1908, for example, more
than half of the complaints related to wages and about a third to
alleged illegal discharge. In Basel in 1909 over a third of the dis
putes had to do with wages and lack of notice of discharge was the
next most important cause. In Zurich in the same year wages caused
about three-fourths of the complaints and discharge caused most of
the other fourth, and in Geneva over 80 per cent of the cases were
demands for wages or other compensation measured in money.
As the primary object of these courts is conciliation and not judg
ment, their procedure differs decidedly from that of ordinary judicial
tribunals. In the first place, the personal appearance of parties is
required except in case of sickness, absence from the city, or other
hindering cause, and such hindrance must usually be proved. In
France, if a party is sick or absent he may be represented by another
employer, employee, or worker engaged in the same occupation, or by
a lawyer. The head of a large industrial enterprise may be repre
sented by his managing director, by an employee, or by a lawyer. The
German law, on the other hand, allows parties to be represented only
by persons who are themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the
court—that is, by employers or workers in some industry. Secondly,
the part played by lawyers in proceedings before the industrial courts
is minimized or suppressed. In France parties who are unable to ap

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 2 7 9

pear may be represented by lawyers and lawyers may always act as
assistants to parties. But in Germany and in Geneva lawyers are not
permitted to appear either as representatives or as assistants. In
practice, however, lawyers do not appear in more than 10 per cent of
the cases brought before the board of judgment in Paris and prob
ably not in more than 5 per cent of those brought before the board
of conciliation. Partly as a result of the discouragement of profes
sional assistance and partly as a result of the duty of the president
to do everything in his power to bring about a reconciliation between
the parties, the proceedings are, thirdly, much less formal than those
of ordinary courts and the president takes a much more active part
than the ordinary presiding judge in the conduct of cases. In both
France and Germany efforts at conciliation may be renewed at any
stage of the proceedings.
In order to facilitate conciliation, moreover, special provision is
made for preliminary hearings before only part of the court. In
France all cases must come first before the board of conciliation,
which is composed of the president of the court or section, assisted
by a member of the opposite class. That is, if the president is an
employer, he must be assisted by a workman member and vice versa.
The public is excluded from the sessions of this board. In Germany
the functions of a board of conciliation are practically performed by
the president alone in preliminary hearings. It is left to the judg
ment of the president, however, whether he will hear a case alone or
with the assistance of assessors. Another important point of differ
ence between the systems of France and Germany is that whereas in
France the board of conciliation may under no circumstances pro
nounce judgment, in Germany, if both parties agree in asking it, the
president, at the close of a preliminary hearing without assessors,
may issue a valid decision. The Geneva system is very similar to that
of France, but the members of the boards of conciliation are specially
chosen for that service and do not usually include the president of
the court. The Geneva boards, moreover, are empowered, if their
efforts at conciliation fail, to decide in first resort cases in which the
value in dispute does not exceed 75 francs ($14.48) and in last resort
cases in which the value in dispute does not exceed 20 francs ($3.86).
Their sessions are private only in conciliation proceedings and not in
judgment proceedings.
Neither the laws of Basel nor of Zurich, on the other hand, make
any provision for special conciliation proceedings. In both Cantons,
however, the president of the court may, on his own responsibility*
hold hearings without the assistance of the other members. The
greater and more successful use made in Zurich than in Basel of this
privilege is the chief point of difference between the courts of the

280

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

two Cantons. In neither, of course, may the president pronounce
judgment in such hearings.
The sessions of the full court are always public, unless the evidence
is held to be dangerous to public order or morality, and in the smaller
places are usually held in the evening or late afternoon so as to
interfere as little as possible with the regular work of the members
and of the parties. In all cases, moreover, such sessions must be
participated in by an equal number of employers and of workers.
In Paris six members are usually present, in Berlin four in addi
tion to the president, in Basel and Zurich two, and in Geneva four
in addition to the president. The president maintains discipline
and may sentence disobedient or disorderly persons to a fine or even
to imprisonment. Witnesses are frequently heard and in some cases
the testimony of experts is secured. The French courts, by reason
of the fact that their members are elected according to special cate
gories of occupations, are usually able, in case of need, to secure
expert judgment from one of their own members. In the majority
of cases judgment is pronounced, if mo agreement is reached, at
the close of the first hearing before the full court, or at the close of
the first hearing to which witnesses have been summoned. In France
the court often decides cases by consultation on the bench, without
retiring or excluding the parties. In Germany and in the three
Swiss Cantons, however, the law provides that the deliberations of
the judges upon decisions shall be conducted privately. The decision
is reached by majority vote except in Basel and Zurich where it is
practically in the hands of the president. In France,.as has already
been seen, if a majority can not be otherwise secured, a justice of
the peace may be added to the court. It is rarely necessary, however,
to take advantage of this provision of the law.
Decisions are based both upon law and upon the customs of the
trade as interpreted by the members of the court. In Germany and
in Geneva trade agreements formed under the direction of the in
dustrial courts also serve as a basis for decisions.
More than half of the cases which come before the courts are
usually conciliated and a large number are withdrawn, not contested,
or settled by judgments by default. The judges, therefore, are called
upon to decide disputes after hearing both parties in only a small
proportion of the cases which appear on the records. In France in
1906 less than 15 per cent, and in Germany in 1908 less than 17 per
cent of the cases brought before the industrial courts were settled,
after hearing both parties, by formal judgments. In 1908 in Paris
about 17 per cent and in Berlin only about 9 per cent of all complaints
were so terminated. It is said that in Switzerland about two-thirds
of all cases are settled without judgment and that the existence of a

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 2 8 1

conciliation board or committee increases the number of such cases.1
In Basel, however, in 1909, only about 2 per cent of the complaints
entered were settled by the president alone and in nearly threefourths of the total number of cases judgments were rendered. But
in Zurich, where the legal provisions relating to industrial courts are
practically the same as in Basel, in the same year nearly 65 per cent
of the complaints were conciliated by the president alone, and in only
about 10 per cent, was it necessary to pronounce judgment. The
Geneva court in 1909, moreover, sent only 18 per cent of all com
plaints entered to the tribunal and the latter pronounced judgment
in only about 12 per cent of all the cases. The Geneva boards of
conciliation in the same year settled only 30 of the 1,795 suits sub
mitted to them by judgments after hearing both parties. It is evi
dent that the judicial functions of industrial courts are decidedly
subordinate to their functions as boards of conciliation.
The most conspicuous advantages of these courts are their rapidity
of action and their cheapness. Every effort is made to settle cases
quickly. After a complaint is entered, for example, the case is set
for hearing at as early a date as possible, and thereafter only abso
lutely necessary delays are allowed. The French law provides that
cases must be settled within four months, and in Germany in 1908
only about 1.5 per cent, even of the cases which were brought to
final judgment, lasted over three months. In Zurich, moreover, in
1909, over three-fourths of the disputes settled without judgments
were ended in less than eight days after the complaint had been
entered and more than half of those in which judgments were pro
nounced lasted less than two weeks.
Fees and costs are reduced to a minimum. In France suits for
less than 20 francs ($3.86) are subject to no fees whatever, and in
other cases the fees range from 15 centimes, or about 3 cents, to
1.75 francs, or about 35 cents, for the different kinds of summonses,
notifications, etc. In Germany no fees are collected in cases in
which agreements are reached, but the actual costs, outside of the
running expenses of the court, are divided between the parties.
In other cases only one fee is charged, and this is graded according
to the amount involved in the dispute. From 1 to 3 marks (23.8 to
71.4 cents) are collected for cases which do not exceed 100 marks
($23.80), and 3 marks for each additional 100 marks. Moreover, if
the case is ended by a judgment by default, or by an acknowledgment
or withdrawal of the claim, only half the regular fees are collected.
Certain costs, such as the cost of summoning witnesses, are also paid
in Germany. When it is considered, however, that in France there
may be several separate fees in one case, it is probable that the total
1Conrad und Lexis, Handwdrterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, Vol. IV, p. 893.
31326°—Bull. 98—12-----19

282

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

cost of a suit is about the same in one country as in the other. The
Basel court collects no fees whatever from the parties, but the Zurich
court collects small fees graded according to the amount in dispute,
and the Geneva court small fees for special services as in the French
courts.
In so far as the expense of maintaining an industrial court is not
covered by the fees, it is met by the municipality or municipalities
over which the tribunal has jurisdiction, or, as in the case of the
German mining courts and of the Basel and Geneva courts, which
have jurisdiction over the entire Canton, by the State. Members may
be compensated for their services in two different ways, by regular
salaries or by fixed fees for attendance at sessions. In France it is
determined in the local regulations whether prudhommes shall re
ceive regular salaries or fees. In Paris they receive regular salaries.
In Germany the president, of course, is a salaried official, but asses
sors are considered to hold honorary offices and receive only fees
as compensation for loss of time. In both countries it is specially
provided that the compensation of employers and workers shall be
exactly the same, and the German law expressly forbids assessors to
decline this compensation. In Basel, Zurich, and Geneva fees are
paid for each session of the court attended.
Judgments of an industrial court, like other judgments, are subject
to change by the usual methods. A party, for example, who has been
condemned through a judgment by default, may enter opposition
to such judgment if he can prove that he had a good excuse for his
failure to appear. Decisions, moreover, may be revised under certain
circumstances. Appeals from the decisions of an industrial court
may be made in France only in cases in which the demand is inde
terminate in value or is for a sum exceeding 300 francs ($57.90), and
in Germany only in cases in which the amount or value in dispute
exceeds 100 marks ($23.80). If the demand is not for a fixed sum,
the industrial court itself determines its value. In Basel and Zurich,
where the courts have jurisdiction only over minor disputes, there is
no appeal except on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction or
exceeded its power. But in Geneva, as in France, appeal may be
made in all cases in which the amount in dispute exceeds 300 francs
($57.90), as well as in those in which lack of jurisdiction or pendency
is alleged. The time, however, within which appeal may be entered
is strictly limited.
In France and Germany appeals are heard by the regular courts.
In Geneva, on the other hand, cases in which the amount in dispute
exceeds 300 francs ($57.90) are carried on appeal before special
chambers of appeal which exist for each group, and cases which are
appealed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction go to a mixed court.
The chambers of appeal are formed within the court itself and have

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 2 8 3

six members, three employers and three workers, in addition to a
president and a secretary. The mixed court is composed of three
prudhommes and two judges of the court of justice.
Since, however, most of the cases which come before the industrial
courts are for small amounts, few decisions are subject to appeal.
Only a small proportion of these, moreover, are actually appealed.
In France in 1906 only about 15 per cent of the suits in which judg
ment was pronounced, and less than 2.5 per cent of those which were
brought, were capable of being appealed. In Germany, owing to the
lower amount set, more cases are capable of appeal. In 1908, of all
the cases in which final judgment, other than judgment by default,
was entered, about 47 per cent Were for over 100 marks ($23.80).
Only about 7.5 per cent of all the complaints made, however, exceeded
this sum. Moreover, whereas in France over two-thirds of the cases
which are capable of appeal are carried to the superior court, in Ger
many only about 7 per cent of such cases are actually appealed. In
Geneva in 1909 only 14 cases were brought before chambers of appeal
and only 2 before the mixed eourt.
All of the courts here studied, except those of Basel and Zurich,
have, in addition to their judicial, certain administrative functions.
Opinions upon industrial questions may be demanded of the courts
of France, Germany, and Geneva by other government officers. The
German courts, moreover, are empowered to present proposals to leg
islative bodies, and may in that way influence the formation of the
laws under which they act or by which their decisions must be guided.
The French courts, though they do not have this power, are reposi
tories of patterns and models under the patent system and take part
in the formation of labor councils (conseils du travail), composed
of representatives of both capital and labor and organized for the
purpose of giving information and advice to the minister of labor
and to the legislature. The German courts, moreover, though not
specifically authorized so to do by the law, sometimes conduct legal
information bureaus. In four Swiss Cantons, Yaud, Neuchatel,
Fribourg, and Geneva, the industrial courts have supervision over
apprenticeship. The courts of Fribourg and Geneva also have super
vision over the sanitary condition of workrooms and raw materials.
The councils of prudhommes of Geneva, moreover, may appoint
special committees for the investigation of industrial and commercial
questions, and regularly take part in the formation of the chamber
of labor (chambre de travail).
Collective disputes are entirely outside of the jurisdiction of the
industrial courts of France and of the Cantons of Basel and Zurich.
The settlement of strikes and the formation of trade agreements,
however, are important functions of the industrial courts of Germany
and of the councils of prudhommes of Geneva. The powers and even

284

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

the composition of an industrial court when acting as a board of
arbitration, however, are quite different from those of the same court
when acting as a judicial tribunal.
In Germany the industrial court may be called upon as a board of
arbitration by both parties or by only one party to a dispute, or, if
neither party takes such action, the president of the court may inter
vene and endeavor to effect a reconciliation or induce the parties to
summon the board of arbitration. One of the duties of the presi
dent is to keep in touch with trade unions and employers’ associations
and to secure early information of strikes and lockouts which may be
either threatened or declared in the trades which are under the juris
diction of the court. The board of arbitration can be formed, how
ever, only on the application of both parties. It is constituted of
arbitrators selected in equal numbers by each side and is presided
over by the president of the industrial court. The arbitrators may
or may not be chosen from among the assessors of the court, but they
must not themselves be concerned in the dispute. Each side appoints
representatives to present its case. Witnesses and experts may also
be heard. If an agreement is reached its terms are made public in a
statement signed by all the members of the board of arbitration and
by the representatives of both sides. Otherwise the board must issue
a decision which, however, is not legally binding on the parties. But
if the arbitrators divide up, all of those appointed by the employers
on one side and all of those appointed by the workers on the other,
the president may decline to cast the deciding vote and declare that
it has been impossible to reach a decision. In any event the conclu
sion is made public and the chief force relied upon to secure sub
mission to awards is public opinion.
The number of appeals to the industrial court as a board of arbi
tration naturally varies decidedly from year to year, but tends to in
crease as the system becomes familiar to and secures the confidence
of employers and workmen. Roughly speaking, about three-fourths
of the cases are settled by agreement and in nearly three-fourths
of those which are ended by awards both parties submit to the
decision. But in a considerable number of cases it has proved im
possible to effect a settlement. The most important service of the
industrial court in collective disputes, however, is perhaps the assist
ance which it has rendered in the formation of wage contracts and
trade agreements. In a large number of cases which do not appear
in the statistics of the work of the boards of arbitration, the presi
dents of industrial courts have presided over meetings of representa
tives of the two sides at which such agreements have been formu
lated.
There has been considerable discussion in Switzerland as to the
relative advantages of an independent arbitration board and of a

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 2 8 5

board connected with an industrial court. Basel and Zurich have
decided in favor of the former. Bern and Lucerne, on the other
hand, have adopted the German plan entire and Geneva has de
veloped a unique system of its own, which covers in one way or
another all collective disputes which arise in the Canton. There the
board of arbitration is composed of the 24 members of the central
committee of the prudhommes and of seven or a less number of dele
gates from each side. The presiding officer, however, is the president
of the central committee.
Disputes are brought before this board either as a result of volun
tary efforts toward the formation of trade agreements or on the
initiative of the State council or the central committee. It is the
duty of the State council, as soon as it learns that a conflict is immi
nent, to make an effort at conciliation and, if this effort is unsuccess
ful, the case is sent to the central committee for arbitration. As in
Germany, public opinion is largely relied upon to secure the enforce
ment of decisions. The law is more radical than that of Germany,
however, in that it forbids any public call for a strike or lockout.
Arbitration, indeed, is practically compulsory, though the accept
ance of the award is not obligatory. In several cases the represenr
tatives of one or the other side have refused to sign the agreement.
Usually, however, even in such cases, the parties tacitly accept the
decision and continue or return to work. But the law does not en
tirely preclude the possibility of strikes and lockouts.
Under the law relating to trade agreements and collective disputes
some 28 agreements were entered into between 1900 and 1910 and
about 15 of these were formed through arbitration proceedings
before the central committee of the prudhommes.
To sum up, the chief points of difference between these courts are
as follows:
1. Under the French system the number of members of the court is
always even and the president and vice president are elected from
among the members. But under the German system the number of
members is always odd and the president is neither an employer nor
a workman. This plan is severely criticized in France upon the
ground that it gives the balance of power to an official of the class
whose authority the industrial courts were created to supersede. It
appears, however, to work well and to be perfectly satisfactory to
both sides. The system in force in Basel and Zurich is similar to
that in Germany except that the president is always a regular civil
court judge. Under the Geneva plan, too, the number of members
of the court is odd, for the president or vice president, one an em
ployer and the other a worker, acts with an even number of other
members drawn equally from each class.
2. In France the various industrial and commercial occupations
are divided into groups, each of which elects its own industrial court

286

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

members. In Germany, on the other hand, though such a division
may be made, it is not customary. The members of the courts of
Basel, Zurich, and Geneva, like those of France, are elected by
groups of occupations*
3. The jurisdiction of the French courts extends only to those
occupations specially named in the decree through which they are
instituted, whereas the jurisdiction of the German and Swiss courts
usually extends to all industrial occupations not provided with other
similar institutions for the settlement of disputes. Commercial occu
pations are included in Basely Zurich, and Geneva and may be in
cluded by decree in France. In Germany, on the other hand, there is
a separate system of courts for commercial occupations and still
another system for the settlement of disputes between members of
guilds and their workers or employees.
4. Each council of prudhommes in France and in Geneva is di
vided into a board of conciliation and a board of judgment. In
the industrial court of Germany there is no such division, but the
same general results are attained by the provision of the law that
the president of the court may hear cases without the assistance of
assessors for the purpose of conciliation. The president alone, there
fore, acts practically as a board of conciliation. In Basel and Zurich
the president acts in such cases without special authorization in
the law.
5. Lawyers may not appear as representatives of parties in the
industrial courts of Germany or the Cantons of Basel, Zurich, or
Geneva, but may so appear in those of France.
6. The courts of France, Basel, and Zurich have nothing to do with
collective disputes, whereas those of Germany and Geneva not only
act as boards of arbitration, but in other ways render valuable
assistance in the formation of wage contracts and trade agreements.
All three countries, France, Germany, and Switzerland, have
voluntary central unions of industrial courts. The French associa
tion publishes a journal, called Les Conseils de Prud’hommes, and
the German union, besides maintaining archives in which are filed
reports, decisions, and trade agreements entered into under the
direction of the court, publishes an official organ, Gewerbe- und
Kaufmannsgerichte. In Switzerland a closer union among the courts
and a uniform system of reports are greatly needed.
Though the French system of industrial courts is much older than
that of Germany, the latter has spread with remarkable rapidity
and is at the present time, statistically measured, decidedly the more
important* In 1906 there were in France 164 councils of prud
hommes, which handled 45,834 cases. In Germany in the same year
there were 419 industrial courts which handled 114,187 cases. In
1908, moreover, Germany had 469 courts and 112,281 cases* The

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 2 8 7

Paris court, however, in its five sections, handled more cases than
that of Berlin in its eight sections. It is evident that Germany has
more small courts which handle few cases than has France. There
are, however, certain special reasons for the numerical superiority
of the German courts which have nothing to do with the compara
tive success of the two systems. In France, for example, only one
council of prudhommes may exist in a district, whereas in Germany,
if in a district a court exists which is restricted to certain industries,
another may be formed to deal with disputes in other occupations.
In Germany, moreover, every city of over 20,000 population must
have an industrial court, and in other municipalities such courts
may be created on the initiative of the local authorities or of the
employers and workers concerned. In France, on the other hand,
their establishment is entirely voluntary and must be approved
though not necessarily initiated by the municipal council. Though
in both countries they are State courts, control over the system is
much more centralized in France than in Germany. In Basel in 1909
there were 680 complaints, in Zurich 1,085, and in Geneva, 1,795.
In France the tendency has been, in the long run, for the number
of cases brought in individual courts to decrease and there is some
evidence to show that, even in the few years that the German system
has been in existence, the same tendency has manifested itself. In
Basel, too, the number of cases has slightly decreased within recent
years, but in Zurich and Geneva it has increased. There is, however,
no particular significance in an increase or decrease in the number
of cases. A decrease may be due to improved factory regulations by
which labor relations are standardized or to a more widespread
knowledge and understanding of the law. An increase, on the other
hand, may be a sign of greater confidence in the industrial court as
a judicial tribunal before which the poor man can obtain his rights.
The vast majority of complaints are brought by workers. In
Germany in 1908 only 5,672 suits were brought by employers, as
compared with 106,269 brought by workers against employers and
340 by workers against fellow workers. In Berlin of the 14,522
cases handled in the same year 702 were brought by employers and
13,820 by workers. In Basel in 1909, moreover, out of 680 com
plaints, 661 were brought by workers. The greater number of com
plaints from workers is, indeed, characteristic of the system. On
the other hand it has been observed that where no such courts exist
the number of complaints raised by employers is disproportionately
large, because the workers fear that they will not obtain justice.1
Naturally, therefore, industrial courts are much more popular with
workmen than with employers.
1Conrad und Lexis, Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, Vol. IV, p. 888.

288

BULLETIN OF THE BUBEAU OF LABOB.

Most of the complaints, too, are for small sums. It has already
been seen that comparatively few cases in France, Germany, and
Geneva are for large enough amounts to be capable of appeal. In
Zurich in 1909 over 80 per cent of the cases were for less than 100
francs ($19.30), while about half were for less than 50 francs ($9.65).
It has been estimated that in all the courts of Switzerland about 85
per cent of the demands are for sums of less than 100 francs ($19.30) .x
Certain criticisms are made of both the French and the German
systems. In France it is said that the ends of justice are too often
defeated by the tacit acceptance on the part of the members of the
court of an imperative mandate or injunction from their constituents
to decide cases in favor of their side. Though this is expressly for
bidden in the law under penalty of forfeiture of position, the feeling
appears to prevail that the imperative mandate is not yet abolished.
It is said, moreover, that the limitation of the jurisdiction of the
councils of prudhommes to cases under 1,000 francs ($193) in value
enables employers to enter counterclaims for larger sums and so take
the case to the ordinary court, where they hope for a more favorable
judgment. There is less criticism, apparently, of the German sys
tem so far as it affects individual disputes. The clauses of the law,
however, which classify foremen and managers who receive over
2,000 marks ($476) yearly as employers and those who receive less
than that sum as workers are frequently criticised. The radicals,
moreover, desire the extension of the jurisdiction of the courts to
domestic servants and other classes of workers now excluded, and
the compulsory establishment of such courts in all municipalities
regardless of population. The idea of an industrial court in Ger
many and Switzerland, indeed, is more closely related to the concep
tion of a civil court, with a special jurisdiction, than to that of a
board of experts or prudhommes.
These courts are based upon the theory, which the legislators of
industrial nations tend more and more to recognize, that the labor
contract is a contract of a special nature to which special rules should
be applied, and that, as the relations to which it gives rise become
more and more complicated, there needs to be developed for their
regulation special legal machinery. To a certain extent the plan
adopted is an adaptation of the jury idea. Originally called into
being as a result of the need for special technical knowledge in the
settlement of industrial disputes, they have come to fill also the need
for close acquaintance with customs and industrial conditions and
for skill in conciliation. This latter need has grown with the increase1
1Handworterbuch der Sehweizerisehen Sozialpolitik und Verwaltung, Vol. 2. Dr. E.
Ziireher, Gewerbegerichte und Einigungs&mter, p, 300.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 289

in a poor, floating laboring class whose members can neither wait
long nor spend much to secure their legal rights in the employment
market.
Wherever established industrial courts are considered as essential
parts of the machinery by which the relations between capital and
labor are regulated. No other courts, it is believed, could handle the
class of cases which come before them so quickly, cheaply, and easily.
It is held, moreover, to be a particular advantage of these tribunals
that no dispute is too small for their consideration. In Germany
suits for as little as 20 pfennigs, or about 5 cents, have been brought
before the industrial court. This may seem petty, but in the first
place 20 pfennigs has higher purchasing power in Germany than
5 cents in America, and, in the second place, the possibility of obtain
ing his rights cheaply and quickly prevents many a man from being
embittered by the sense of powerlessness against injustice.
These courts, however, are much more frequently used and are
more successful in districts and industries where small scale pro
duction prevails than in those where the factory system exists. A
large proportion of the disputes arise in such industries, for example,
as building, the manufacture of clothing, and the preparation of food
and drink. The conditions of labor in large establishments are so
standardized as to giv.e rise to fewer disputes than arise in small
shops. Moreover, the workers employed in large establishments are
sometimes afraid of being blacklisted if they bring suit against their
employers and are therefore ready to endure small losses, just as is
probably done in the vast majority of similar cases in the United
States.
While this system of industrial courts has been growing up in
Europe, England and the United States have been much more occu
pied with the settlement of collective than with the settlement of
individual labor disputes, and, though they have developed inde
pendent systems of arbitration boards for the former, have left the
latter to the ordinary courts. In England, indeed, a law passed in
1824 provided that the justice of the peace should draw up a list of
arbitrators, half employers and half wage-earners, and that the
parties in individual disputes might each choose one of these arbitra
tors to act in their case. But the procedure was long, costly, and com
plicated, and the law was never applied. A law of 1867, moreover,
permitted the formation of industrial courts similar to those of
France. No true judicial tribunal, however, was ever established
under its provisions, which were applied only in so far as they related
to conciliation.

290

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

In the United States the only similar law ever enacted was passed
in Pennsylvania in 1883, and was perhaps suggested by a report*
published four years earlier, upon arbitration and conciliation in
England.1 This law provided that permanent tribunals for the
settlement of individual labor disputes might be created upon the
demand of 50 workmen or of 5 employers, each of whom had at least
10 persons working in his establishment. All decisions of these
courts, however, were to be subject to the confirmation of the tri
bunals of common law. This legislation met with the same fate as
that of England. No courts were established, and in 1893 the law
was abrogated.
THE INDUSTRIAL COURTS OF FRANCE.
HISTORY.12

The first industrial court (conseil de prudhommes) was estab
lished at Lyon in 1906, and from that time until the present day
the institution has grown steadily in size and power. So-called
councils of prudhommes, composed exclusively of masters, had
existed in France from about 1294 until the abolition of all special
courts in 1791. But the Lyon court was based upon an entirely
different principle, the election by their peers of prudhommes or
experts to represent both sides of industrial disputes. This prin
ciple has been at the bottom of all subsequent legislation, and is the
basic principle of the law of 1907, under which the institution has
acquired a position of much greater importance than ever before in
French industrial life.
The law which created the Lyon eourt provided further that
councils of prudhommes might be established, if deemed advisable, in
all the factory cities of France. Under this provision the system
was gradually extended until by 1810 there were 20 and by 1830, 53
courts in France. In 1844, when the first industrial court was estab
lished in Paris, the number had increased to 66, and all the other
principal industrial cities of France were provided with courts. In
Paris there were special difficulties on account of the diversity of
industries and of conditions. The jurisdiction of the first court
there was limited to the metal industries, but in 1847 three new courts
were organized, one for textile industries, one for chemical products,
and one for “ diverse industries.”
1 Report on the Practical Operation of Arbitration and Conciliation in England, by Jos.
D. Weeks, 1879.
2 This account of the history of the industrial courts of France is based primarily upon
Regaud, Les Conseils de Prud’hommes; Regnault, Les Conseils de Prud’hommes; and
Gruet, Les Conseils de Prud’hommes, Revue Politique et Parlementaire, mai, 1895.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 2 9 1 .

The following figures show the growth of the system in France
by decades since 1830;
NUMBER OF COUNCILS OF PRUDHOMMES IN FRANCE AND NUMBER OF CASES
DEALT WITH BY SUCH COUNCILS, BY DECADES, 1830 TO 1900 AND 1906.
Year.
1830 ...................................................................................................................................
1840.....................................................................................................................................
1850................................................................................ .................................................
I860....................................... .............................................................................................
1870............................................ ....................................................................................
1880.....................................................................................................................................
1890...................................................................................................................................
1900.....................................................................................................................................
1906 ......................................................................................................................... ...........

Number
Number of cases
of courts. dealt
with.
53
64
78
95
109
118
143
160
164

11,61315,578
28,429
42,166
30,249
39,560
45,005
52,090
45,834

The number of courts has increased steadily by decades, though
Appendix I, Table II, shows that there have been fluctuations
from year to year. In 1910 there were about 175 courts in France
and Algiers. The number of cases handled shows considerable fluc
tuation even from decade to decade, but, upon the whole, has
increased more rapidly than the number of courts. In 1830 the
average number of cases to a court was about 220 and in 1906 about
280 a year. Changes in legislation and in the popularity of the insti
tution, hereafter to be discussed, account, in part at least, for the
fluctuation. Unfortunately statistics for the whole of France are
not yet available for any year since the present law went into
effect. The number of cases in Paris from 1906 to 1909 was as
follows;1
1906
1907
190S
1909

____19,262
____ 17, 929“
____15,970
J __ 20,020

Within recent years there has been a tendency, except when the
jurisdiction has been extended, for the number of cases introduced
to decrease. There are two principal causes for this. First, both
employers and wage-earners are gradually becoming educated to
understand what are and what are not their rights, what will and
what will not be upheld by the prudhommes, and this knowledge
tends to decrease the number of actions. Often the threat of one
party to bring the case before the court is sufficient to bring the other
party to terms. Second, the development of large industries tends
to decrease the number of cases. It is generally in communities
1 These figures are for the four Paris courts, or councils of the Department of the
Seine, which were formed under the law of 1907 into sections of a single court. The
section of commerce, which began its work in 1909, is omitted. In spite of this omis
sion, the reorganization of the Paris court, which took effect on Jan. 1, 1909, in con
formity with the law of 1907, obviously increased the number of cases.

292

BULLETIN OF THE BUKEAU OF LABOR.

where there are numerous small industries that many complaints are
brought before these courts. Where factory industry predominates
there are usually few cases. In one large factory district, for ex
ample, only six cases were brought before the prudhommes during
1900. In some districts, moreover, where these courts were once
active, they have almost died out owing to changed industrial con
ditions.
It is the small shop workers primarily, and not the factory
workers, who use the councils of prudhommes. The chief reasons
for this are that factory workers fear the blacklist, that factory
industry is so standardized that there are fewer individual causes
of complaint, and that personal factors are less prominent than in
home and shop work.
The causes of disputes brought before the courts show a change
which confirms this theory. The statistics show that bad work;
though perhaps originally the greatest cause of the disputes which
the councils of prudhommes were created to settle, has diminished
steadily in importance—a decrease due to the increased use of ma
chinery in industry. Moreover, purely technical causes of dispute
have decreased, while causes common to all labor contracts have
increased.
The following figures1 show, briefly, the movement:
CAUSES OF DISPUTES BEFORE COUNCILS OF PRUDHOMMES OF FRANCE IN
SPECIFIED YEARS, 1880 TO 1906.
Number of disputes concerning—
Year.
1880.....................................................................................
1890...................................................................................
1898...*..............................................................................
1906....................................................................................

Wages.
26,170
33,343
32,748
25,751

Dis
Appren
charges. Bad work. ticeship.
4,954
4,411
7,789
12,313

2,663
999
744
524

1,446
907
853
578

The legislation in regard to the councils of prudhommes has been
several times revised. The first law, that of 1806, was adapted to
meet the special needs of the Lyon silk industry, which was carried
on by merchant manufacturers who furnished materials to con
tractors or heads of workshops. The latter themselves hired journey
men and apprentices. Under this system and the freedom of in
dustry established in 1791, many difficulties of a technical character
had arisen, which the ordinary courts were not competent to settle,
and it was primarily to conciliate such differences that the first
council of prudhommes was established. It was also authorized,
1Figures in regard to other causes of disputes are given in Appendix I, Tables III
and V.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 2 9 3

however, to pass judgment, if necessary, upon all cases in which the
amount in dispute did not exceed 60 francs ($11.58). To this end
two departments of the court were formed, the board of concilia
tion and the board of judgment. The real workmen, however, the
journeymen, had no part in the organization of this court, which
was composed of nine members, five merchant manufacturers and
four contractors or heads of workshops. The journeymen had no
part even in the elections.
As a result of the extension of the system, it soon became necessary
to formulate more exactly the basis of the institution and to lay down
more general rules. This was done by a decree in 1809, and later by
an opinion of the conseil d’etat in 1820. From time to time other
slight changes and several additions, which have remained in force,
were made. In 1810 the courts were authorized to judge in first re
sort, whatever the sum in dispute, but in last resort only on cases in
volving less than 100 francs ($19.30). The decree of the year before
had allowed journeymen who had paid for a special license to carry
on industry independently (ouvriers patentes), and who frequently
employed other journeymen, to take part in the formation of the
councils of prudhommes. But the great majority of workmen were
excluded, and the merchant manufacturers retained their preponder
ance in the composition of the courts until 1848.
In that year, under the influence of the new spirit of democracy,
four important changes were introduced First, it was provided
that henceforth the court should be composed of an equal number
of employers and of workers, and that the total number, there
fore, should be even instead of odd as before. Second, an abso
lutely new mode of election was established, the chief feature of
which was that the employers elected the workmen members and
the workmen the employer members, each class having previously
nominated from among its own members a list of three times as many
candidates as were to be elected by the assembly of the other class.
Third, it was provided that the president of the court should be alter
nately an employer and a worker.
Fourth, the foremen, contractors, heads of workshops, and even
the licensed journeymen, who had formerly furnished the second
group in the courts, were now themselves classed as employers, and
the second group was formed of genuine wage-earners who had never
before been allowed to vote or been eligible to office. This arbitrary
classification, however, led to immediate complaints, for the class of
foremen, contractors, and heads of workshops was so large in num
bers, as compared with the genuine employers, that it could abso
lutely control the election of employers. Moreover, foremen could
so easily be reduced to the ranks of simple workmen that, if elected
as employers, they often became wage-earners soon afterwards.

294

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR. .

Filially, the head of the workshop is the only person, under the
contract system, whom the employer can hold responsible for bad
work, and the very class of difficulties which had originally led to the
formation of the councils of prudhommes were left practically un
provided for under this new classification. An attempt was made by
a decree of June 6,1848, to remedy the matter by creating three cate
gories of prudhommes, employers, workers, and foremen, contract
ors, and heads of shops, who should compose two chambers, the one
of employers and foremen and the other of employers and workers.
For some reason, however, this decree was never applied.
The law of 1848, indeed, worked badly from the beginning, creat
ing antagonism and class war instead of the spirit of conciliation and
peace. The number of cases conciliated diminished, and the number
of disputes introduced and of cases appealed from the decisions of
the courts increased considerably.
As a result of numerous complaints a new law was passed in 1853
which, while retaining the principle of absolute equality of em
ployers and workers, abolished the double system of elections and
replaced the foremen and heads of workshops in the class of workers.
Another important change was that henceforth the presidents and
vice presidents were to be appointed by the Emperor. Moreover,
the jurisdiction in last resort was raised to disputes involving less
than 200 francs ($38.60).
From that date until 1880 the changes made applied mainly to
interior regulations, matters of procedure, discipline, and other minor
points. There was, however, especially after 1867, continual agita
tion in favor of various reforms of the system and in favor of its
extension to other industries and occupations. This agitation re
sulted, in 1880, in the passage of a new law which, though having
several excellent provisions, introduced one important change which
led to continual friction in the working of the court. Incidentally,
this law provided for the election of secretaries by the members of
the court instead of, as before, their appointment by the administra
tive authority. Moreover, it abrogated the provisions of the decree
of 1806, which allowed no compensation to employer members, and
provided that there should be henceforth absolute equality between
the two classes in this respect. It also provided that the board of
conciliation, which had formerly been always presided over by an
employer, should be presided over alternately by an employer and a
worker.
The provision which eaused trouble, however, was that which did
away with the appointment of the president and vice president by
the head of the State and provided that they should be elected from
among the members themselves; the president to be chosen from one
side and the vice president from the other. This apparently innocent

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 2 9 5

change was rendered a cause of great friction and difficulty by the
fact that the clause of the law of 1853, which provided that the
board of judgment should consist of an equal number of representa
tives of each side and the president or vice president, was still in
force. This provision, which had worked fairly well when the presi
dent and vice president had been chosen from outside, began to work
very badly as soon as they were elected from inside the court. Ob
viously the side to which the presidency belonged had the majority,
and the equilibrium between the two sides was hopelessly destroyed*
Complaint was constant of the preponderance of one or the other
class. Employers chose the day to bring their suits when an em
ployer presided, and wage-earners the day when a workman pre
sided. If the court was against them one party often tried, on
some pretext, to have the case postponed until the majority should
be for them. It was stated at one time that two-thirds of the
cases were favorable, sometimes to the employers, sometimes to the
workers, according as the president was one or the other. An in
vestigation, however, covering the decisions of four years at Paris,
Lyon, Marseille, Lisle, and Bordeaux showed that the evil was very
much exaggerated and that the proportion of successes of work
men and employers, under each kind of president, had been approxi
mately the same. Nevertheless, public confidence in the courts was
decidedly shaken. Moreover, the elections of presidents and vice
presidents raised within the courts lively discussions and contests
which were little conducive to the spirit of conciliation, amity, and
peace.
In many places, indeed, especially during 1884, the feeling was so
bitter that movements were entered into which amounted to strikes
of one side or the other. Sometimes, in protest against the law, all
the employer members and sometimes all the worker members of a
court would resign or refuse to serve. In some places, too, the elec
tors went on strike, sometimes one class and sometimes the other re
maining entirely away from the polls. Whether the strike was of
the members or of the electors it became impossible for the court to
act. A law was therefore passed in 1885 which provided that, if
two elections had been held and still, for any reason, the member
ship was hot complete, the court could act, provided it was composed
of half the number of members of which it was normally constituted.
This law had the effect of putting a stop to such cases, for under its
provisions a strike of one class would not prevent the court from
acting, but would simply throw all its powers into the hands of the
other class.
There were, however, manifest evils in the system and, to remedy
these, two plans were suggested: First, that the president should
be a professional magistrate, and therefore impartial and thoroughly

296

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

versed in the law; and second, that the number of judges, including
the president, should be even instead of odd. Finally, at Nimes,
the experiment was tried of summoning both the president and the
vice president to each session of the board of judgment, making
the number on each side the same. In two years it was found that
no case occurred upon which it was impossible to reach a decision
with this organization of the court. The prudhommes took great
pride in being able to settle every case, and the spirit of conciliation
apparently entered in more easily when the parties felt that there
was no absolute majority either for or against them.
This latter remedy, indeed, appears always to have been the more
popular in France. In its acceptance, however, there was involved
still another difficulty, for, if the number of judges was to be even,
it was necessary to provide some means of deciding cases in which
the judges might divide, half on one side, half on the other. To
meet this difficulty it was proposed that the justice of the peace be
introduced in such cases—a compromise with the idea that the
president should be a professional magistrate. Many persons ar
gued, however, that this was bad in principle, because to give the jus
tice of the peace a deciding vote would destroy the purpose for
which the court was created. Another argument used against this
proposal was that it would delay proceedings. Still another was
that many strikes were born of disputes which first came before the
councils of prudhommes and that, since the justices of the peace
had arbitration functions in strikes, they ought to have nothing
to do with such cases until brought before them as arbitrators.
Finally, however, the solution of equal representation, in both the
board of conciliation and the board of judgment, with the justice
of the peace as president in case of need, was adopted by the law of
1905. This change has fundamentally transformed the character of
the institution.
Other evils, the most important of which were the acceptance by
the judges of an imperative mandate from their constituents, and
the formation of fraudulent counterclaims for the purpose of carry
ing cases to a higher court, had also arisen.
The idea of the prudhomme as a representative instead of as a
judge, as charged with the duty of obeying the wishes of his con
stituents instead of with the duty of enforcing law and equity,
arose, apparently, from analogy with an arbitration board or court,
upon which each side has its representative to present its case. With
the growth of trade unions in France this idea spread among the
working people, and, doubtless, with the growth of employers’ asso
ciations, among the employers. It aggravated very greatly the diffi
culties due to the preponderance of one class or the other in the
board of judgment and resulted in violent struggles and impas

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 2 9 7

sioned debates within the court. The result was, naturally, to
greatly diminish the power of conciliation.
Among the workers, whose methods could not be secret, this was
an openly avowed policy. At Roubaix, in the election of 1895, for
example, the candidates of the revolutionary socialist committee
bound themselves, in the words of their own platform, 66to make
triumphant, under all circumstances, the claims of the workers.”
Frequently the resignations of candidates were placed in the hands of
their party committee for use in case the committee might desire to
exercise the “ recall.” Moreover, committees of surveillance were
organized to follow the debates and inform themselves of the votes
of every member. A rule of the committee of surveillance of Mans
was that “ the candidate must, on the evening before his day of
audience, repair to the trade-union headquarters (bourse de travail)
in order to hear the explanations of the plaintiffs and to indicate to
them the best method of presenting their cases.”
Though more apparent among workers, these methods are said to
have been equally prevalent, but more discreetly hidden, among em
ployers.
Various methods have been tried to do away with this evil. At
first, elections in which the candidiates had only accepted an im
perative mandate were annulled. But in Paris in 1889, after two
such elections had been annulled, one after the other, on the third
the same candidates were elected as on the other two, only this time
they refrained from publicly declaring their program. The law of
1907 declared the acceptance of an imperative mandate illegal and
penalized with the loss of his position and with permanent ineligi
bility to reelection the judge or the candidate who had been con
victed of such acceptance. Nevertheless, the offense is very difficult to
prove, and it is still claimed by many that candidates are practically
pledged to decide cases in the interest of their own class. Such a
secret understanding, however, can hardly apply to any but doubtful
cases where the leaning of the judge would naturally be toward his
own class. The prudhomme, however, might be, in this respect,
more liable to bias than the ordinary elective judge, for he is elected
or reelected by a single class.
Meanwhile appeals from the decisions of the industrial courts,
which were rarely made before 1853, became frequent after 1880.
From 1821 to 1853 only 10 per cent of the cases which were capable of
appeal wTere taken to the higher courts. From 1854 to 1880 the aver
age was 16 per cent, but from 1881 to 1890 it increased to 34 per cent,
from 1891 to 1895 to 36 per cent, and from 1896 to 1900 it rose to
75 per cent.
31326°-—Bull. 98—12---- 20

298

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

Moreover, the employers resorted to a method by which the indus
trial courts could be deprived of jurisdiction over cases not normally
capable of appeal. The following extract from the official report of
a meeting of the employers’ association of optical instrument makers
in 1900 shows the method and how frankly it was advocated: “ When
an employer is sued by a discharged workman who claims an indem
nity, even after having known the rule of the workshop, he will do
well to bring a counterclaim against the workman of more than 200
francs ($38.60), based on any reason whatsoever; for example, imper
fect work. With this counterclaim he will be able to bring the affair
on appeal before the tribunal of commerce.” Thus cases belonging
of right to the industrial courts were practically taken out from
their jurisdiction and placed under that of a court whose judges were
elected by employers alone. In Paris, before the passage of the law
of 1907, out of 703 such countersuits only 3 were recognized as well
founded.
The recent law raised the jurisdiction in last resort of the indus
trial courts to cases involving up to 300 francs ($57.90) and decided
that appeals should be brought before the civil tribunal instead of the
tribunal of commerce. At the same time attention was called to the
fact that the common law provided legal punishment for parties who
appealed cases merely to escape the jurisdiction of the court. This
proceeding, however, raised into a system, is not easily suppressed.
Some pretext, such as bad work or waste of materials, can often be
found for a countersuit for damages, and the whole litigation be
thus transferred to another court. The plan may be used, moreover,
to tire out adversaries who are in need of a prompt solution of their
difficulties. As late as March, 1910, abuses of the privilege of intro
ducing countersuits were the subject of complaint, and it was said
that the legal remedy for such cases was not sufficiently well known.1
In spite of these difficulties, however, an active agitation was car
ried on for many years to extend the jurisdiction of the industrial
courts to new classes of wage-earners, especially to miners and to
commercial employees. It was argued that councils of prudhommes
were especially needed for the mining industry, because miners show
a greater spirit of solidarity than other workers, and individual dis
putes more often lead to collective disputes. At the same time,
however, it was recognized that in the case of mining it was espe
cially difficult to constitute such a court, because there were few
employers and the employer judges must often be parties to the
dispute. It was recognized, moreover, that if the jurisdiction of the
courts were extended to commercial employees, the theory of the
special technical competence of the prudhomme must be abandoned,
On the other hand, it was argued that even for commercial disputes

Bulletin de l’Office du Travail, 1910, p. 527.

INDUSTRIAL. COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 299

knowledge of customs was needed, and that there was a certain lack
of confidence in the commercial courts, before which such cases were
regularly tried, as was shown in the comparatively small number of
cases "brought before these tribunals as compared with the number
brought before the councils of prudhommes. The extension to com
mercial employees was long and vigorously fought, but the opposi
tion was slowly overcome.
The new law of 1905, in which several radical changes were made,
some of wThich have been already mentioned, was followed two years
later by the law of March 27, 1907,1 which codified the previous
legislation upon the subject, greatly extended the jurisdiction of
the courts and introduced other desirable changes. The jurisdiction
was extended not only to many occupations not formerly included^
especially to commercial, pursuits, but also to disputes between
workers by reason of their work.
Many difficulties, it is evident, have arisen, but the system has been
generally recognized as important and, on the whole, beneficent. It
has long had its enemies, howTever, as well as its friends, and has as a
rule been more popular among working people than among employers*
Its enemies have declared that the union of employers and workers as
judges is derogatory to the judicial principle of unity; that special
tribunals are objectionable; that the judges, even when they do not
accept an imperative mandate, inevitably listen more favorably to
their own electors than to the other side; and that politics enter into
the elections, and incapable agitators, unfamiliar with law, are chosen
judges by the workers.
Its advocates, on the other hand, have claimed that theoretical
objections are more than counterbalanced by practical advantages;
that these courts give a cheap and rapid method of settling labor dis
putes ; that special technical knowledge is necessary in the settlement
of many such disputes; and that this special tribunal is justified by
the social necessity of maintaining harmony between employers and
workers and of facilitating conciliation in their differences. The
prudhommes, it is said, can conciliate cases much more readily than
ordinary judges, first, because the fact that both sides are represented
by persons of their own trade inspires confidence; second, because
their technical knowledge makes it possible for both parties to ex
plain their grievances in their ordinary shop language without the
mediation of an attorney and with the certainty of being understood;
third, because this same technical knowledge makes it more difficult
for the parties to make before these judges exaggerated statements or
claims; fourth, because their informal character and lack of pomp
and display put the parties comparatively at their ease; fifth, be
cause parties are obliged to appear in person; and sixth, because con
1

See Appendix II for the text of this law.

300

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

ciliation is the chief purpose of the court, and every effort is made
at every stage of the proceedings, in the board of judgment as well
as in the board of conciliation, to induce the parties to come vol
untarily to an agreement. In short, it has been long and widely
recognized as not only desirable, but necessary, that these two great
forces of labor and capital should be called to meet face to face
before a democratic tribunal composed of both classes, the primary
duty of which is to induce them to conciliate their differences.
Since the passage of the law of 1907, moreover, the system has
decidedly increased in popularity. Trade unions have taken a much
more active part within recent years, and employers, though they
generally believe that cases brought before the civil tribunals would
more often be decided in their favor, appreciate the quickness of the
decision and the small cost, important objects to them as well as to
workmen, and are well enough contented.
METHODS OF CREATION AND OF DISSOLUTION.

Councils of prudhommes may be created in France in either one
of two ways—upon the initiative of the Government or upon the
demand of a municipal council supported by the advice of various
commercial and industrial bodies. In the former case the Govern
ment consults these bodies, but is not obliged to abide by their de
cision; in the latter it is legally obliged to yield to the demand. Any1
private organization may ask for the creation of a court, but the
demand must first be brought before the municipal council, for the
municipality must bear the expense of the institution. When the
municipal council has acted favorably upon the proposition the next
step is to draw up a table indicating the industries and occupations
to be included, the proposed division of occupations into groups,
the number of prudhommes of each group to be elected, which is
determined by the probable number of cases in that group, and the
number of employers, workers, and employees in each occupation.
The final classification of occupations, however, and the final de
termination of the number of members to be elected, is made by
the minister of labor, who submits the proposition to the minister
of justice. When the details have been agreed upon between these
two departments the decree creating the court is submitted to the
conseil d’etat and is finally signed by the President of the Republic.
The decree determines, (1) the territorial jurisdiction of the court,
(2) the occupations over which it shall have authority, (3) the
classification of these occupations, and (4) the number of prud
hommes in each group. Only one court can exist in a city and it
therefore becomes necessary, if the number of persons to be placed
under its jurisdiction is large, to divide it into sections. This di
vision, also, must be made in the decree.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 3 0 1

The territorial and occupational questions have already been
sufficiently considered. But, once the occupations are determined,
the question of classification arises. The court may be divided into
sections, separating large groups of occupations under practically
independent tribunals. The council of prudhommes of Paris, for
example, is divided into five such sections—one of the building trades,
one of chemical products, one of textile industries, one of metals and
various industries, and one of commerce. Whether or not this di
vision into sections is made, however, each court or section must be
divided into categories. That is, it must contain representatives of
both employers and employed from different kinds of industry.
There must be at least 12 members, but there may be as many more
as are demanded by the exigencies of classification. In any case, there
must be the same number of employers and of workers in each sec
tion and in each category. It is explicitly stated that workers and
employees must be separately classified. The decree determines,
moreover, the number of members to be elected in each category,
which must be at least two employers and two workers or employees.
Reorganization of the industrial courts may be effected on the ini
tiative of the Government, or on the demand of the persons inter
ested, by decrees similar to those creating these bodies.
An industrial court may be dissolved, also by decree, on the ini
tiative of the minister of justice, if it appears to the Government
to work unsatisfactorily. It may be dissolved, moreover, if, by reason
of, resignations or other causes, less than half of the total number
of members of which it should legally be composed remain in office.
In case of dissolution, new elections must be held within two months
from the date of issue of the decree. Meanwhile, cases over which
it would have jurisdiction are brought before the justice of the
peace.
Industrial courts may even be completely suppressed at the in
stance of the minister of justice and of the minister of labor. Or,
if the number of cases no longer justifies the existence of a court,
or internal difficulties render the normal and satisfactory exercise of
its functions impossible, it may be either provisionally dissolved or
completely suppressed by decree of the President of the Republic.
The chief causes which may bring about the dissolution or sup
pression of an industrial court are (1) the demand of the communes
which are responsible for its expenses, (2) the ineligibility or resigna
tion of the members elected, when their replacement does not appear
possible, (3) the refusal of the majority of members either to be
installed or to act, and (4) the fact that the existence of the court
has become unnecessary.
Councils of prudhommes may be established under this law, or by
decree with certain modifications of the law, in the French colonies

S02

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

other than Algiers. The law itself provides for certain modifications
to be introduced in Algiers, where the institution has existed since
1881. The chief change is the inclusion of a new element, native or
Mohammedan members. The number of these native members is
determined by decree, according to the needs of the native population,
and they are taken in equal numbers from among the employers and
from among the employees or workers. Whenever a case comes
up which concerns one or more Mohammedans who do not enjoy the
rights of French citizenship, two of these members, one an employer
and the other a wage-earner, are added to the court, where they have
the same rights as other members, except that they can not be elected
president or vice president. They are elected by Mohammedans who
are not French citizens but are inscribed on the municipal electoral
lists, and fulfill the general conditions of age, of practice of the occu
pation, and of residence. They must be able to read and write either
French or their native language and to speak French. Interpreters,
too, appointed in the same way as secretaries, may be attached to the
Algerian courts.
ELECTIONS.

The members of the councils of prudhommes are elected for six
years, half of each class being replaced every three years. When a
new court is created the members draw lots, after the election, to
determine which shall be replaced at the end of the first three years.
The elections are somewhat complicated, owing to the number of
different groups into which it is necessary to divide the voters. ' In
the first place there is the division between employers and workers
or employees. This makes three different voting lists, and different
qualifications for entry upon each. Each one of these lists, more
over, must be divided into as many parts as there are groups of oc
cupations. Women, as well as tnen, have the right to vote under
conditions which, though necessarily differently expressed, are sub
stantially the same.
QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS.

There are certain general qualifications for voting and, in addi
tion, special qualifications for workers, employees, and employers.
The first general qualification is registration upon the regular polit
ical poll books, or, in case of women, all conditions, except that of
sex, necessary for such registration. The most important of these
conditions are that the women must be French and must not have
incurred any of the disqualifications which would prevent a man
from voting, such as conviction of crime, etc. In the case of men,
as well as of women, the idea seems to be that the prudhomme elec
tors should satisfy the conditions of the regular electorate, and there

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 3 0 3

is some doubt as to whether actual registration upon the regular polit
ical poll books is essential, even in the case of men.1 The second gen
eral qualification is that voters must be at least 25 years old. There
is, moreover, a third qualification which strikingly differentiates a
prudhomme electoral list from an ordinary electoral list. This is the
condition that a prudhomme elector shall have exercised, regularly
and continuously for at least three years, one of the occupations men
tioned in the decree instituting the council. The theory is that the
elector should be personally subject to the jurisdiction of the indus
trial court. The period of apprenticeship may be included in these
three years, but in any case they must be the three years immediately
preceding registration. A man may have worked at an occupation
for 20 years, and yet if he has not been engaged in that occupation
during all of the preceding three years, he can not vote in a prud
homme election. Moreover, if he has worked at several occupations
during these three years he is disqualified from voting. The question
has arisen and been much discussed whether the secretary of a tradeunion {bourse de travail) has the right to vote at these elections, and
it has been decided that he has the right only if his employment as
secretary does not occupy enough of his time to prevent him from
working regularly at his trade. An unemployed wage-earner, how
ever, a wage-earner on strike, retains his right to vote. The fourth
general qualification, however, is that a voter must have lived for at
least one year immediately preceding within the jurisdiction of the
court for which he wishes to vote. This seems to imply that it is not
necessary that all three years’ work at his special occupation shall
have been within that jurisdiction.
The special qualifications of workers relate primarily to their po
sition in the establishment. As has already been seen, there has
always been difficulty in deciding who were workers and who were
employers. The present law provides that workers, gang foremen,
overseers who themselves take actual part in the manual labor, and
foremen of home shops who work themselves on their own account
and not for another, are to be classed under the general heading of
workers. On the other hand, foremen in factories who have only
supervisory functions, or who only repair machinery in addition to
their supervisory functions, and who are the immediate representa
tives of the employers, are classed for voting purposes as employers.
1 M. Cluzel (Traits Pratique des Conseils de Prud’hommes, p. 8 ) believes that actual
registration on these books is necessary, but further on (p. 1 0 ) he states that, after the
completion of the regular lists, electors are invited to present themselves for registration
upon the prudhomme lists. M. Strauss (Code Manuel des Conseils de Prud’hommes,
p. 11) also states that actual registration is necessary. M. Malnoury (Manuel Pratique
du Conseiller Prud’homme, p. 11), on the other hand, believes that in this provision the
legislature had less in mind the actual fact of such registration than the right to be
so registered, and thinks a person not registered on the regular books may still be regis
tered as a prudhomme elector.

304

BULLETIN OF THE BUBEAU OF LABOB.

The performance of manual labor, indeed, appears to be the criterion.
This distinction has decidedly simplified the division. But there are
still many puzzling questions. For example, a taskmaster or pace
setter may receive wages, which would place him as an elector in the
ranks of workers, or he may receive a percentage upon the work
done by others, which would place his economic position nearer that
of the employer. Questions of fact and of theory are both involved,
and the matter is complicated by the fact that the functions of a
foreman are often different in different industries.
The difficulty is met in part by classifying wage-earners in indus
trial enterprises who do not come under the definition of workers or
manual laborers, with wage-earners in commercial enterprises, as
employees. The employee electors, then, include not only persons
employed in commerce, in the sale and distribution of merchandise,
but also persons employed in industrial enterprises who do not them
selves take part in the manual labor. Foremen who merely direct
and overlook work are classed as employees. Even if one of their
duties is to attend to machinery, they are still employees.
Employer electors are defined as persons who employ on their own
account one or several wage-earners. It is not sufficient to be inter
ested in an enterprise as a shareholder or money lender. The em
ployer elector must be in direct control of the enterprise and have
direct or indirect relations with the wage-earners, relations from
which the kind of differences may arise which the industrial courts
are formed to settle. Merchants who contract out work, however,
are considered as employers, for, though they may not employ a
single wage-earner in their own store or workshop, they have indirect
relations with wage earners which frequently give rise to the class of
disputes in question. Partners, moreover, carrying on a business
mentioned in the decree are all employer electors, and are jointly
and individually liable before the industrial courts for the acts of
the firm. Managers and directors of any industrial or commercial
enterprise are considered as direct representatives of the real em
ployers, whether the latter be individuals or joint-stock companies,
and as such are classed for voting purposes as employers. If for no
other reason, such classification is necessary in view of the fact that
it is generally against them that actions are brought for violation of
factory and other labor laws. Presidents and members of adminis
trative councils of joint-stock companies, engineers in charge of
works, and, in general, heads of commercial, industrial, and mining
enterprises are also and for the same reason classed as employers.
Other important points relating to the qualifications of voters are
that all persons engaged in any occupation included in the decree
establishing a council of prudhommes must be eligibile to entry upon
one or other of these electoral lists, and that no one shall be eligible

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 3 0 5

to be entered upon more than one list. An employer, for example,
who is both a merchant and a manufacturer, is not allowed to vote
for prudhommes in both the commercial and industrial sections of
the court. He can, however, make his choice as to which section he
wishes to belong to for voting purposes. But the council as a whole
is considered as one court, and the principle of “ one man one vote ”
governs the elections. It appears, however, that if the amount of
business to be done by the court is not considered sufficient to justify
the creation of a commercial section, the wage-earners who are
classed as employees have no vote. In that case, however, they are
not under the jurisdiction of the council of prudhommes. The gen
eral principle prevails that all persons who are amenable to the
tribunal have the right to vote for its members.
QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES.

The qualifications of candidates are in some respects more rigor
ous, and in other respects less so, than the qualifications of electors.
Electors who are at least 30 years of age, have lived for at least three
years within the jurisdiction of the court, and can read and write,
are eligible. It is believed that a judge who has not resided for a
considerable time in a neighborhood is not competent to properly
Understand and apply the customs of that locality. In this case it is
distinctly stated in the law that it is not necessary that candidates
be actually registered upon the regular political poll books, but only
that they be eligible to such registration. Obviously, they must have
worked at their occupation for the preceding three years or they
would not be electors. In one case which occurred in 1900 a man who
had been secretary of a trade-union {bourse de travail) since 1898
resigned and worked for two weeks at his trade before becoming a
candidate for the position of prudhomme. He was declared
ineligible.
Often, however, labor-union officials who are still engaged in
their trades are elected members of industrial courts, and it is said
that unions often contrive to this end, for the reason that they can
then pay their officers smaller salaries, the compensation of a prud
homme acting as a supplement to the amount received from the
organization. Thus an economy is effected for the union. Formerly
the labor unions took little interest in the councils, but within recent
years they have been very favorable to the institution.
Former electors, moreover, who have not been out of the occupa
tion for more than 5 years and who have worked at it for at least
5 years within the jurisdiction are eligible as candidates, though
not electors. In other respects such persons must fulfill the require
ments of electors. The object of this provision is to make it possible

306

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

to secure as members of the courts retired employers and wageearners who, by reason of their knowledge, are thoroughly competent
and, by reason of their independent position, are disinterested.
Under this rule the secretaries of trade-unions or of employers’
associations are eligible for 5 years after they have abandoned their
industrial or commercial occupation. But if a member of a council
who was elected as a wage-earner becomes, during the course of his
term, an employer, or vice versa, he is obliged to announce that fact
and to resign his position.
To determine the group of occupations in which a candidate is
eligible it is necessary to consider not the list upon which he is
entered as an elector, but the occupation in which he is actually
engaged. An elector who is engaged in two occupations belonging
to different groups may choose the one in which he wishes to vote,
but this choice does not prevent him from being eligible to election
as a prudhomme in the other group.
Since 1908 women have been eligible as candidates, and in 1910
two women were serving, one of them in Paris.
By decree of April 20, 1840, relatives, either by blood or in law,
up to the degree of uncle and nephew, can not be members of the
same court even if the relationship has been brought about after
the election.
Prudhommes whose terms have expired are eligible to reelection,
but prudhommes who have been removed from their positions for
any reason are never again eligible. Any candidate, especially, who
has been convicted of having accepted an imperative mandate is ho
longer eligible to election. Those who have refused to exercise their
functions, moreover, and those who have voluntarily resigned are
not eligible for three years thereafter.
PROCEDURE.

The provisions of the law dealing with the conduct of elections
may be divided into those relating to (1) the preparation of the
voting lists, (2) protests against the lists, (3) the formalities of the
election, (4) protests against the election, and (5) supplementary
elections.
The registration lists for elections to the councils of prudhommes
are made up every year within 20 days after the completion of the
regular political registration lists, regardless of whether or not a
triennial election is to take place that year. At least two lists must be
prepared—one of employers and one of workers. In case the court
is to have jurisdiction over commercial as well as industrial enter
prises, however, it is necessary to add a list of commercial employers
and one of employees, making four in all. These lists, moreover, are

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 3 0 7

subdivided according to groups of occupations. The regular polit
ical poll books, with their classified information as to occupations,
furnish the basis. The classification into employers, employees, and
workers is made by a commission composed of the mayor of the com
mune, one worker elector, one employer elector, and one employee
elector. These three electors are appointed by the municipal council.
In case the court is not to have jurisdiction over employees, the employee elector is, of course, omitted. The function of the electors on
this commission is mainly to give information in regard to persons
eligible who are not on the lists, persons on the list who are no longer
eligible, and other matters. When the commission has done its
work, the prefect divides each group of electors into subgroups ac
cording to the categories of occupations in the decree instituting the
court. He then has copies of these lists deposited in the office of the
secretary of the court and in the town hall of each commune, where
they can be examined. Women, who by reason of their civil disabil
ities are not entered in the regular poll books, must make special re
quest to be registered and must present evidence of their eligibility.
Other persons are also invited to present themselves for entry on the
prudhomme lists. Such persons must, if requested, furnish proof of
their right to be electors.
Protests against the omission or inclusion of names may be brought
before the justice of the peace, and finally before the court of ap
peals. No expense is attached to this proceeding, and it is not neces
sary to employ a lawyer. Any elector may make such a protest. An
employer, for example, may protest against the inclusion of the name
of a worker and vice versa. Electors of one section, moreover, may
protest against the inclusion of names in another section, upon the
ground that the sections unite for the formation of common rules
and for the election of the president general of the court. In case
of the exclusion of a name, however, only the person directly con
cerned can protest. No public authority has the right to make such
protests after the lists are published.
Elections for the industrial courts are governed in most respects
by the same rules that govern regular municipal elections. They
always take place, however, on Sundays, and employers and wageearners have separate polling places. If there is a commercial sec
tion, there must be four polling places for (1) commercial employers,
(2) industrial employers, (3) employees, and (4) workers. At each
polling place there must be separate ballot boxes for each group of
occupations. The prefect, who fixes the day and the place of the
elections, may fix more than one place, in order to prevent the electors
from having to travel long and costly distances.
On the first ballot no election is valid unless the candidates have
obtained an absolute majority of the votes and this majority is equal

308

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

to a fourth of the registered electors. On the second ballot, how
ever, a plurality is sufficient, and, if the result is a tie, the oldest
candidate is declared elected. This second vote, if needed, must take
place the Sunday following the first, and is only a supplementary
vote to complete the first, and never a new election. The fixing of
the minimum number of votes necessary for an election at one-fourth
of the registered electors is due to the fact that, as a rule, little in
terest is taken in the elections. Before this provision was introduced
in the law prudhommes were often elected by a very small propor
tion of the voters. Even in Paris, where a good deal of interest is
usually taken, only a small proportion of those registered vote. As
a rule, it is the organized workers who take an interest and control
the elections. The unorganized workers are without leaders and pay
little or no attention, while the trade unions put up and elect their
own candidates. In the same way it is the employers’ associations
who elect the representatives of the employers.
Protests against an election may be brought within five days after
the announcement of the result, by the attorney general or by any
elector. The candidate whose election is challenged has five days to
reply. The court of appeals of the jurisdiction decides such cases.
Four causes of protest are admitted, (1) that the forms prescribed
for the election have not been followed, (2) that there have been
frauds in the election, (3) that a candidate elected is not eligible
under the law, and (4) that a candidate has accepted an imperative
mandate. But an employer elector can not contest the election of a
worker or employee, and vice versa.1 As in the case of protests
against the registration lists, no expenses are attached to the legal
formalities required and the services of a lawyer are not necessary.
In case of vacancies in the court, whether through the annulment
of the first election, the resignation of members or any other cause,
new elections are held within one month of the creation of the
vacancy, unless a regular election would normally occur within three
months. The terms of office of members so elected expire at the same
time that the terms of those whom they replace would have expired.
It is provided that, if supplementary elections have been held with
the same results as the first elections, or if any other cause of vacan
cies arises, no further elections shall be held, but the court shall act
as it is constituted until the next triennial election, provided that the
number of members of the council or of the section is not less than
half of the total number of members of which it should regularly be
composed. In case a court is composed of only one class, employers
or wage-earners, it still has all the attributes and privileges of a
regularly organized council.
1 Decision

of court of appeals, Mar. 10, 1909.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY. AND SWITZERLAND.

309

ORGANIZATION, EXPENSES, AND DISCIPLINE.
COMPOSITION OF THE COURT.

When the members are elected and the time allowed for protests
has expired they still have two formalities to go through with before
they proceed to the exercise of their duties. First, they are sum
moned before the civil tribunal to take the oath of office, which is as
follows: “ I swear to perform my duties with zeal and integrity and
to preserve secrecy as to matters under deliberation.” This oath must
be taken individually, and a member reelected must take it over again.
No proceedings of the court are legal in which a member who has
not taken the oath of office has had part.
Second, the members must be formally installed, a ceremony which
is presided over by the outgoing general president of the court, or, in
case of a newly organized body, by the oldest member. The essential
feature of the installation is the reading of the official report from the
civil tribunal stating that the elected members have taken the oath
of office. In practice, the retiring members also take part in this
function, and the president congratulates the newly elected members
in a short speech, which is replied to by the oldest among them. Anofficial report of the ceremony, drawn up by the secretary, is then
signed by all the members. Finally, after a momentary adjourn
ment, the new court proceeds to business.
As at all sessions, however, the members, before entering upon
their duties, must put on, not the judicial robes of other French
law courts, but a simple silver badge, attached to a ribbon, which
is worn on the left side of the breast. It is said that, while it is
desirable to have as little pomp as possible in the sessions of the in
dustrial courts, in order that simple people may not be overawed and
may be able to present their own cases simply and naturally, this
little insignia of office aids in maintaining discipline and a proper
respect for the dignity of the court.
The law provides that the members who are to be replaced shall
remain in office until the installation of their successors. No diffi
culty arises in the application of this clause when there are no elec
tion contests or when the elections of both the representatives of one
class and of one group of occupations are protested. In the former
case the installation takes place shortly after the election and can
not legally be delayed. In the latter, both the old members remain
in office until the final settlement of the contests. But if the election
of only one of the two representatives of one class and of one group
is contested, there is no way to determine which of the members in
office shall remain and which shall give place to the successor whose
election is not contested. One authority1 thinks that in such cases
1

Cluzel, Traits Pratique des Conseils de Prud’hommes, p. 45.

310

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

both of the members in office should retire at the time of the installa
tion of the candidate who has been definitely elected.
The chief purposes of the general assemblies of the councils of
prudhommes are (1) to make or to revise rules for the administra
tion of their internal affairs; (2) to elect presidents and vice presi
dents; (3) to nominate or revoke the nomination of secretaries; (4)
to exercise their disciplinary power over members or secretaries, and
(5) to formulate opinions upon questions submitted to them by the
administration. Opinions of this kind are most often demanded
upon questions which arise in the preparation of social or economic
legislation. The general assemblies also choose the bailiffs.
General assemblies do not convene regularly, but may be called
by the president, by a majority of the members, by the min
ister of justice, or by the minister of labor. If there are several
sections, the general assembly includes the members of all. But
there may also be general assemblies of a section. Except in cases
in which only an opinion is to be given, the actions of these assem
blies are not binding unless the majority of the members are pres
ent. The sessions are always private and the deliberations secret,
and no question not officially on the program may be discussed.
Official reports of these meeting, however, are sent to the minister
of justice and, if deemed necessary, to the minister of labor.
The rules for internal administration to be adopted by these gen
eral assemblies relate to the days and hours of the sessions of both
bureaus, to the rotation of service or the order in which the mem
bers shall act, to the method of choosing the presidents and vice
presidents of the bureaus, to questions of order, to the hours of
opening and closing the office of the secretaries, and to the func
tions of the assistant secretaries. The rules for internal adminis
tration must be approved by the minister of justice and, in so far as
they deal with administrative functions or with consultations, they
must also be approved by the minister of labor.
On the same day that the members are installed the court proceeds
to the election of a president and a vice president. If the court is
not divided into sections, only one president and one vice president
are elected. The president must be taken alternately from the ranks
of the employers and from the ranks of the workers or employees.
In newly organized courts the two sides draw lots to see which shall
have the first presidency. If the president is an employer, then the
vice president must be a worker or employee, and vice versa. Both
are elected for one year by secret ballot and by an absolute majority
of the votes, or, in case two ballots have been taken and no candi
date has received an absolute majority, by a plurality on the third
ballot. In case there is still no decision, the member who has been
longest in continuous service, or, if two or more have served the same

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 3 1 1

length of time, the oldest is declared elected. Former presidents and
vice presidents are eligible to reelection. For example, one man may
be one year president, the next vice president, the next president
again, and so on. Vacancies in the court do not affect the elections.
If the court is divided into sections, the proceeding is somewhat
different, but the same principles apply. In that case each section
elects its own president and vice president just as if it were an inde
pendent body. Then the presidents and vice presidents so elected
meet together and elect the president general of the court, who must
be chosen from among the presidents of the sections. It may happen,
as a result of this rule, that the president general may be of one
class, employers, for example, for a number of years.
Elections of presidents and vice presidents may be challenged in
the same way as elections of members.
The duties of the president, when there is only one section, are to
preside, alternately with the vice president, over the board of judg
ment, to convoke and preside over the general assemblies, to watch
over the general administration and the judicial functions of the
court, to draw up the budget, to carry on the relations with other
public authorities, and especially to inform these authorities of
vacancies which may occur in the court, to take necessary measures to
secure discipline, and to superintend the different provisions for
internal regulation and for the work of the secretary’s office. The
vice' president presides, alternately with the president, over the
board of judgment. He also supplies the place of the president,
whenever necessary, in all his duties.
If the council contains more than one section, the president of each
has the same duties for his section that he would have for an inde
pendent court. In that case the president general, as such, has only
to superintend the general discipline, to draw up the general budget,
etc. 'He has no right to interfere in the internal management of any
section other than his own, unless, on account of the failure or in
capacity of the president of the other section, such interference may
be absolutely necessary. He is charged, however, with the external
administration of the affairs of the industrial court.
The other officers of the councils of prudhommes are secretaries,
assistant secretaries, and bailiffs. A council which is not divided
into sections has only one secretary. In one which is divided into
sections, on the other hand, each section may have its own secretary,
or they may have only one secretary among them. In Paris each of
the five sections has its own secretary and assistant secretary. The
bailiff is selected from among the bailiffs already in office in the place
where the court sits, and is assigned the usual duties of such a court
officer.

312

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

The secretary and assistant secretary are appointed by the Presi
dent of the Republic on the recommendation of the minister of jus
tice, who makes his selection from a list of three candidates decided
upon in general assembly of the court. The three candidates are
voted upon separately by the members and must receive a majority
of the votes of the whole court, not merely a majority of the members
present. If no candidates receive a majority, the Government is
free to make the appointment without such recommendation. If the
three candidates are all, in the opinion of the minister of justice, in
capable or unworthy, he may ask for a new list, or, if that is refused,
may either dissolve the court or appoint the secretary and then re
voke the appointment. The minister of justice, indeed, has the privi
lege of revoking the appointment of a secretary at his discretion,
and the duty of revoking it upon the demand of two-thirds of the
prudhommes. No term of office is fixed by the law for secretaries,
and usually they remain in office for considerable periods of time.
No conditions of age or of capacity are laid down for the post of
secretary. The duties are such, however, that no minor could be
given the appointment. Moreover, no relative of any member of
the court may be secretary without special permission of the Presi
dent of the Republic. Obviously the secretary can not be subject to
the jurisdiction of the court, and he is usually chosen from outside
the occupations mentioned in the decree. The secretary takes, before
the civil tribunal, the same oath as the clerk of a court. Like* the
clerk of a civil court, moreover, he may be replaced provisionally by
any citizen who knows how to read and write and has been previ
ously sworn. The secretary’s salary, which in such case goes to his
substitute, is fixed by decree. He is also entitled, as will be seen
later, to certain fees.
The functions of the secretary are similar to those of the clerk of
an ordinary court. Though he has no vote in the decisions, he is an
essential factor in the council and no judgment is valid unless he has
taken part. On the other hand, he can not act in any case in which
he is even indirectly interested. His chief duties, and in case of his
absence, the duties of the assistant secretary, are to write up the
records of the hearings of the board of conciliation and of the
board of judgment and the proceedings of the general assemblies,
to send summonses to members, experts, arbitrators, etc., and to
receive the deposits of patterns and models provided for by articles
14 to 19 of the law of 1806. He is in charge of the archives of the
court and keeps a register of the cases on hand. He must keep his
office open every day except Sundays and holidays, at hours which
are determined by the special internal regulations of the council.
He is legally responsible only for the duties assigned to him by the
law or the regulations, and is under the direction of the president of

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 313

the court. It follows that he can not be sued for any act necessary
in carrying out his legal duties or the instructions of the president.
EXPENSES, FEES, AND COSTS.

The running expenses of the industrial courts are borne by the
communes belonging to their jurisdiction, but offices and court
rooms are furnished by the city governments. The usual expenses
which are divided among the communes are those of (1) first estab
lishment, (2) purchase of insignia, (3) heat, (4) light and minor
necessities, (5) elections, and (6) the remuneration of secretaries
and of assistant secretaries. The municipal councils of the com
munes may also, by vote, assume other expenses. They may, for
instance, increase the salaries of the secretaries, if they deem insuf
ficient the amount fixed by the decree of organization.
Another optional expense which is frequently assumed is the pay
ment of the prudhommes themselves for their services. Before 1880
only the wage-earning members of the court were paid, but by a law
of that year it became obligatory to treat both employers and workers
alike. The payment may be in the form of a monthly salary or of
a fee for each hearing attended. It is not by any means always suffi
cient in amount to make it unnecessary for the members to work at
their trade or occupation. Certain municipalities, however, appoint
wage-earner members of the industrial courts on municipal commis
sions and thus indirectly grant them special compensation for their
services. Up to 1871 the prudhommes of Paris received no com
pensation whatever, but since that date they have been granted,
first, a fee of 5 francs (97 cents), later raised to 10 francs ($1.93),
for each session attended, and afterwards a salary of 1,200 francs
($231.60) per year, which was raised to 1,800 francs ($347.40) in
1891.
The proportion of the expenses borne by each commune depends
upon the number of prudhomme electors which it possesses. Finan
cial reports and budgets are drawn up every December by the secre
tary, and are sent by the president of the court to the prefect of the
department for approval.
The principle prevails, in the industrial as in other courts, that the
party who is defeated shall be condemned to pay the expenses. The
court expenses, however, as will be seen by reference to articles 58
and 59 of the law of March 27, 1907,1 are very light. The various
fees range, under ordinary circumstances, from 15 centimes, or about
3 cents, for a summons by simple letter before the board of concilia
tion, to 1.75 francs, or about 35 cents, for the notice of a judgment
delivered by the bailiff. If the distance is considerable, somewhat
1 See Appendix II.

31326°—Bull. 98—12-----21

314

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

higher fees are allowed, in proportion to the distance, but in any
case the expenses are small. Moreover, if the object of the contest
is less than 20 francs ($3.86), all the acts of procedure are free of
cost, while in no case are the parties obliged to advance the fees.
Furthermore, if a person who is party to a suit can produce a
certificate from the tax collector of his place of residence showing
that he has no assessable property, and also a certificate from the
mayor of his commune showing that he is not able to pay the ex
penses of a suit, he can secure from an office established for that
purpose legal assistance, which means not simply exemption from
payments to the court, but also the services of a lawyer, if required.
Legal assistance may be received in any action before the industrial
courts or appealed from their decision. It is not, however, peculiar
to such proceedings, but is a regular French institution. As a mat
ter of fact, legal assistance is not often obtained in cases before the
prudhommes, partly because the necessary expenses are so small
and the services of a lawyer so rarely needed and partly because it
is important in such cases to obtain a rapid solution of the difficulty,
and legal assistance can not be granted without formalities which
are necessarily slow.
DISCIPLINE.

Members of industrial courts, like other magistrates, are subject
to various penalties in case of failure or fraud of any kind in the
performance of their duties. A member is rendered ineligible for
reelection for three years if he refuses to be installed, tenders his
resignation, or refuses without legitimate reasons to perform the
service to which he is summoned. In the latter case he may be
declared by the civil tribunal to have resigned.
If a member seriously neglects his duties formal proceedings are
entered into before the council or the section, during which he is
summoned to appear in his own defense, and he is subject to repri
mand, suspension, or dismissal according to the gravity of the offense.
If, for example, a member brusquely leaves a hearing before its
adjournment in order to avoid taking part in the judgment or for
any other reason, or if he provokes an altercation with his colleagues
or manifests audibly his opinion of the parties or of the justice of the
peace who may be presiding, he renders himself liable to reprimand or
suspension. Reprimand carries with it no further punishment. Sus
pension can not be pronounced for a longer period than six months,
and is ended if the member is reelected during that period. The
member, however, whose offenses entail dismissal is never again
eligible to election.
The only offense specifically mentioned in the law, however, the
punishment for which is dismissal, is the acceptance of an impera

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 315

tive mandate (mandat imperatif).1 The following statement in
regard to the imperative mandate was made by M. Groussier, in a
report to the Chamber of Deputies, in 1907:12 “ What is forbidden is
the pledge that a candidate or a prudhomme councilor takes to render
his decision always in favor of the class to which he belongs, even if
he knows that such a decision is wrong. It is evident that this pledge
can not be reconciled with the practice of justice, which must always
depend upon a free conscience. But the pledge to judge according
to equity, for example, can not be forbidden, for that would be the
acceptance of a mandate which would be imperative, not only by
reason of an act of the electors, but by reason of the law itself.
Article 51 can not be applied, moreover, to the pledge which every
councilor makes to take into the greatest consideration the usages
of the profession, not to let them fall into disuse, and to demand
respect for the conventions of the profession. In this he conforms
again to the spirit of all legislation relative to the labor contract.”
This illegal imperative mandate may take various forms. For
example, it has been declared illegal for a candidate to pledge him
self to uphold a minimum rate of wages and to condemn the employer
in all cases in which this rate has not been paid. It has also been
declared illegal for a candidate to pledge himself to apply workshop
regulations only if they have been approved by a trade union, with
out regard to whether they have been recognized and accepted by the
parties. In fact, the member of an industrial court is not considered
as a representative, but as a judge.
Other offenses, of a civil and criminal nature, are subject to the
regulations laid down in the civil and criminal code for all magis
trates.
Like all magistrates, moreover, the members of an industrial court
must live in the chief town of the jurisdiction, and must not be
absent, at least on the days when sessions of the court are held,
without permission from the president. They must, moreover, assist
at all the sessions to which they are called by reason of the rotation
of service established by the general assembly. These rules, however,
are not applied with great severity. In case of short absences it is
sufficient if the president and secretary be notified so that the work
of the court shall not suffer.
JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS.
JURISDICTION.

The judicial functions of the councils of prudhommes are essential
to their fundamental purpose, while their administrative functions
1 An imperative mandate is the instruction given to a member by his constituency to
vote in a certain way.
2 Stance du 7 mars, 1907; Journal officiei du 23 mai, 1907, p. 200.

316

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

are merely accessory to that purpose. In all matters concerning
their judicial functions they are dependent upon the ministry of
justice, but in matters concerning their administrative functions
they are dependent upon the ministry of labor, or, in their patentoffice functions, on the ministry of commerce. Their fundamental
purpose, according to article 1 of the law of 1907, is “ to terminate
by means of conciliation differences which may arise by reason of
labor contracts, in commerce and in industry, between employers
and their representatives and the employees, workers and apprentices
of either sex whom they employ.” These bodies are, indeed, special
courts instituted in order to conciliate, if possible, and, if not, to
pass judgment upon individual labor disputes.
The jurisdiction of the industrial courts now extends over prac
tically all classes of wage-earners engaged in commerce and industry,
except farm laborers, sailors, and domestic servants. Before the
passage of the law of 1907 their jurisdiction was limited to manu
facturing industries, but that law may be applied to a large variety
of occupations; for example, to miners, quarrymen, railroad em
ployees, carriage and omnibus drivers, street-car employees, boatmen,
bank clerks, commercial travelers, agents, warehouse porters, sales
men and saleswomen, theater employees, musicians, and many other
wage-earners. Occupations, however, which are not carried on for
profit, and those in which merely personal service is rendered, are
excluded. Even a manufacturing industry which is not carried on
for profit is excluded. Surgeon dentists, for example, are not amen
able to this jurisdiction when they do not speculate in the articles
sold to their patients, even though these articles are manufactured by
them. Ostensibly upon the ground that public industries are not run
for profit, moreover, public employees are excluded from the juris
diction of the councils of prudhommesc
Any individual court, however, has jurisdiction only over the
special occupations named in its decree of organization or of re
organization. In determining whether a particular case comes under
the jurisdiction of a court the principle is adopted that the occupa
tions of both parties must be mentioned in the decree. It is possible,
therefore, for one worker engaged in an occupation identical with
that of another worker in another establishment to be excluded while
the second worker is included, because the particular industry car
ried on by fhe employer of the first is not mentioned in the decree.
Two kinds of individual labor disputes are within the province of
the industrial courts, those which arise between employers and wageearners by reason of labor contracts, and those which arise between
wage-earners by reason of their work. Disputes between employers
come before the commercial courts. The law does not specifically
state that disputes between employees shall be subject to the prud

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 317

hommes, but it does so state for disputes between workers, and the
intention was probably to include all wage-earners.1 In disputes be
tween wage-earners, however, it must be shown that the trouble was
actually occasioned by their work. Claims for compensation in case
of accidents, however, are specifically exempted from the jurisdiction
of these courts.
In the first class of disputes it is necessary that between the two
parties there shall be a wage contract of some sort which places the
one in the relation of a subordinate to the other. A written contract,
however, is not necessary and the method of wage payment has no
significance. If one man employs another at wage labor, the relation
ship is supposed to imply a contract, the terms of which may be
proved by witnesses or by interpretation of the customs of the trade.
In general, the idea of contract is broadly interpreted. It has been
decided, for example, that when all workers in an establishment are
obliged to belong to a benefit society the obligatory retention of a
portion of their wages for dues, etc., is part of their labor contract.
The contract, however, must be actually in force at the time pf the
dispute. It has been decided by the court of appeals, for example,
that a suit brought by a striker, who had broken his wage contract
to* go on strike, for reinstatement after the strike, was not within the
jurisdiction of the industrial court, because no labor contract was
then in force.2 On the other hand, an employer who, under threat
of a strike, dismisses a wage-earner may be condemned to pay
damages.
;An interesting distinction is made, moreover, between certain con
ditions of work. Persons who labor on their own premises, furnish
all their own materials, and receive payment by the piece are not
considered as parties to a labor contract. Artists, for example, who
invent and execute patterns on their own premises, furnishing all
their own materials, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the councils
of prudhommes. But it is not necessary that the worker or employee
labor under the direct supervision of the employer. The head of a
home workshop, for example, is a worker in the employ of the manuiR oth Strauss (Code Manuel des Conseils de Prud’hommes, p. 88) and Cluzel (Traitd
Pratique des Conseils de Prud’hommes, p. 60) maintain that, because of the wording of
the law, disputes between employees by reason of their work are not within the jurisdic
tion of the industrial court. But Malnoury (Manual Pratique du Conseiller Prud’homme,
p. 67) upholds the view here given that the intention of the legislature was to include
all wage-earners, and that, therefore, not only disputes between employees but also
disputes between a worker and an employee are within the jurisdiction of the industrial
courts.
The distinction here made between workers and employees is drawn in the letter of
the French law, and is followed throughout this discussion. A worker is an industrial
wage-earner pure and simple, while an employee is either a wage-earner engaged in a com
mercial employment or a foreman or the head of a workshop in an industrial enterprise.
2 This doctrine, however, has been vigorously criticized as confusing the legal existence
of a contract and its execution. (Cluzel, Traits Pratique des Conseils de Prud’hommes,
p. 150.)

318

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

facturer who furnishes him materials, and their relations are sup
posed to be governed by, a labor contract.
The provisions of the laws governing labor contracts and labor
conditions, as well as the specific terms of the contract in dispute,
furnish the basis for the decisions of the industrial courts. The
usual conditions necessary for the validity of contracts—(1) free
consent, (2) competency, (3) the rendering of services on the one
hand and the payment for services on the other, and (4) legality in
the object of the contract—are, of course, basic. Apprenticeship
contracts are upon the same footing as labor contracts. The princi
pal labor laws governing the decisions of the councils of prudhommes relate to apprenticeship, employment certificates, the labor
contract, garnishment of salaries and wages, military service, and
the wages of married women. It has sometimes been urged that
factory inspectors should bring their cases before these courts, but
this idea has gained little ground, because such cases are not gener
ally based upon labor contracts.
The customs of the trade and locality are used to fill out the de
tails of verbal or understood contracts, and even of written contracts,
unless the custom is specifically repudiated. Custom, indeed, is en
throned beside law in the councils of prudhommes, and it is because
they are supposed to be intimately acquainted with the customs, as
well as the technical points involved, that the prudhommes have been
given jurisdiction over this special class of cases. As a result, how
ever, a large variety of decisions may be rendered in similar cases,
based upon differences in circumstances or in local usages, and some
of these decisions may even be contradictory. One interesting func
tion of the councils of prudhommes, in this connection, is to deter
mine rates of wages in cases in which no formal agreement has been
entered into between the parties. It has no right, of course, to inter
fere with formal agreements, but in their absence it has the duty of
fixing wages according to the customs of the trade and of the locality.
In exceptional cases this function is left to the arbitration of a third
party. If this third party can not or does not wish to decide, the
wages will be regulated by experts chosen by the parties, and in
default of agreement between these experts, by the industrial court.
Two other classes of cases which come under the jurisdiction of
the industrial courts are those which arise through the formation,
by the plaintiff, during the trial, of additional claims, and those
which arise through the formation, by the defendant, of counter
claims. The councils of prudhommes have charge of all such cases
as come naturally within their jurisdiction, but they must all be
united in a single suit when they are between the same parties and
when their cause existed before the introduction of the principal
claims. Even when, under the latter exception, cases are brought

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 319

separately, the court can reserve decision upon one until the other
is up for judgment, in order to join them and pronounce upon all
the points at the same time. If it can be shown, however, that the
object of a counterclaim was merely to raise the amount in dispute
so as to allow of appeal, and is manifestly improper, the defendant
renders himself liable to be condemned by the court of appeal to pay
damages to the plaintiff. But he can not be so condemned if the
appeal court decides that his contention was even in part justified.
The amount in dispute also affects the jurisdiction. In differences
between employers and employees the councils of prudhommes may
consider only cases in which the principal claim does not exceed
1,000 francs ($193). Counterclaims may exceed this amount only if
they rest exclusively on the pricipal claim. In disputes between
employers and workers, however, there is no limit to the amount
which may be in dispute. But in both cases the amount involved
determines whether the court can decide the case with or without
appeal. A case in which the total amount does not exceed 300 francs
($57.90) can not be appealed except upon the ground of lack of juris
diction. In suits instituted by a number of wage-earners against an
employer the decision is without right of appeal if each one of the
wage-earners claims less than 300 francs ($57.90).
As for its territorial jurisdiction, a council of prudhommes has
charge of all cases arising in establishments located within a certain
territorial area, regardless of the places of residence of the parties.
In case the work is not done in any establishment the province of
the court is determined by the place where the engagement or labor
contract was entered into.
The territorial jurisdiction may be extended, however, under the
code of civil procedure, to cover cases not arising within its normal
limits. In the same way, upon the request of both the employer and
the employee, the court may decide a suit, in which the amount in
volved is over 1,000 francs ($193). The jurisdiction of the court can
not be extended over cases of a different nature from those already de
scribed as belonging within its power, but the prudhommes may be
called upon by agreement between the two parties to act as arbi
trators in cases of any kind.
When there are two or more sections of a court the character of
the work, and not the nature of the establishment, determines which
section has jurisdiction over the dispute.
The general character of the disputes which come before the council
of prudhommes, and the relative frequency of the different causes of
disputes, are shown in Appendix I, Tables III and V. Wages,
discharges, and apprenticeship are much the most frequent sources
of trouble. Bad work, in the beginning perhaps the most important
of all, is now relatively unimportant. Other causes of disputes are

320

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

claims for indemnity for unemployment or loss of time, incompetence,
controversies over traveling and removal expenses, fines, delayed and
unfinished work, the retainment of wages for insurance funds, and
failure to execute agreements.
In the absence of an industrial court, or of a section, its functions
devolve upon the justices of the peace and the civil courts. Formerly
this led to many anomalies, for proceedings before a justice of the
peace could be carried on only under the ordinary rules of a civil
court. Judgments upon exactly similar cases, for example, were
subject to wholly different rules of appeal according to whether they
were issued in a place where there was or in one where there was not
a council of prudhommes. A law of November 13, 1908, however,
extended the rules of procedure of the law of March 27,1907, to cases
between employers, workers, and employees brought, in default of an
industrial court, before the justice of the peace of the civil courts.
GENERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE.

Certain general rules of procedure are applicable to cases brought
before both the board of conciliation and the board of judgment.
It is provided, for example, that both parties must appear in person
upon the day and at the hour fixed by the summons. Two exceptions,
however, are allowed to this rule. First, if a party is sick or absent
he may be represented by another employer, employee, or worker,
engaged in the same occupation, or by a lawyer. Second, the heads
of large industrial or commercial enterprises may be represented by
their managing director, by an employee, or by a lawyer.
In practice lawyers rarely appear before the councils of prud
hommes except as the representatives of these large industrial and
commercial enterprises. They take part, as a rule, in only about
10 per cent of the cases which come before the board of judgment
and probably in an even smaller proportion of cases before the
board of conciliation. It is maintained, however, that the workers
especially need the right of being represented by a lawyer, because
they are less instructed and less able to defend themselves than the
employers. On the other hand, it is contended that persons who
make a profession of appearing in legal cases are not likely to aid
conciliation.
When the parties appear in person, as they generally do, they
may be accompanied by an employer, employee, or worker engaged
in the same occupation, or by a lawyer, who may assist them in the
presentation of their cases. A wage-earner, for example, may be
assisted by the secretary of his union; or, if he so desires, he may
be assisted by an employer of his trade. It is quite common for
wage-earners to be accompanied by older or more experienced com
rades in proceedings before the industrial courts. Wives, too, may

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 3 2 1

be assisted by their husbands, and minors by their parents or
guardians.
Owing to the legal disabilities of married women in France, the
legislature in 1907 introduced a clause allowing industrial courts,
in case the husband was absent, or was hindered from giving or even
refused his authorization, to themselves authorize married women
to enter into proceedings before them. Another law of the same
year, however, on the subject of the wages of married women gave
them free control over the products of their labor and the right to
appear without authorization, in contests relative to their wages, in
any court. This latter law, therefore, makes unnecessary the special
authorization of the councils of prudhommes in most cases brought
before them by married women.
Minors, too, under similar conditions, may be authorized by in
dustrial courts to enter into legal proceedings before them.
The rules of procedure of these courts are such that their action
is comparatively rapid. Most of the cases which come before them
are ended in a week and nearly all within a fortnight.
BOARD OF CONCILIATION.

In each court, or, if there are sections, in each section, there is
a board of conciliation and a board of judgment. The board of
conciliation is composed of two members, one employer and one
worker or employee, who preside by turns, according to the pro
visions of the rules adopted for the internal administration of the
court or of the section. It must have hearings at least once a week,
at which the secretary assists. All cases, except such as depend upon
or are countersuits to others which have already been taken to the
board of judgment, come first before the board of conciliation.
The procedure of the board of conciliation is very simple, but,
as conciliation is the chief object of the councils of prudhommes,
is of the first importance.
Cases may be brought directly, without any formality or delay,
by the simple appearance of the parties before the board of con
ciliation on one of the days and at one of the hours fixed for its
sessions. Usually, however, the defendant is summoned by a simple
letter from the secretary containing the name, occupation, and resi
dence of the plaintiff, the object of the complaint, and the day and
hour fixed for the appearance. This letter enjoys the postal fran
chise. It may, however, be delivered by the plaintiff, if he so de
sires. This privilege is given for the express purpose of offering
an opportunity for the parties to conciliate their difficulty before it
is brought before the court, and this purpose is often accomplished.
Contests relative to the delivery of the summons by the plaintiff,

322

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

moreover, are extremely rare. If such a contest arises before the
board of judgment, however, the parties may be sent back before
the board of conciliation, upon the demand of one of them; other
wise the board of judgment may proceed as though the summons to
the board of conciliation had been regularly delivered.
The proceedings are informal, the first duty of the prudhommes
being to attempt to reconcile the two parties by any legal and pos
sible means. Nothing must be neglected to that end, but the methods
to be employed are left to the judgment of the prudhommes. Natu
rally they, unlike other judges whose main object is to decide the
case and not to conciliate it, take an active part in drawing out the
stories of both parties.
No one is allowed to be present at the hearings except the two
councilors, the secretary, and the parties and their assistants. An
outsider can not be admitted, even with the express consent of both
parties. It is argued that this privacy facilitates conciliation by
insuring sincerity and avoiding outside pressure in the decisions of
the two parties upon concessions proposed, and it is rigidly observed.
On the other hand, many persons maintain that public hearings
are a form of education for those who are waiting their turn, and
that the sessions of the board of conciliation should be public.
Cases brought before the board of conciliation may take four
courses. Both parties may appear and be conciliated; they may both
appear, but not be conciliated; the defendant may not respond to
the summons; or the plaintiff may not appear. In the first case the
proceedings are comparatively simple. As soon as the definite agree
ment has been reached, an official report of the case and of the con
ditions of the agreement is drawn up and signed by the president,
the secretary, and the two parties. This agreement has the force of
a private obligation.
In the second case, a simple report is drawn up stating why con
ciliation has not been effected, and the affair is assigned to the next
hearing of the board of judgment. If one of the parties refuses to
take the oath, when requested to do so by the other, before the board
of conciliation, or if one of them challenges, for any reason, the
right of one or more of the members of the board to act, this course
is considered as a refusal to conciliate, and the matter is immediately
transferred to the board of judgment. The plaintiff, however, has
a perfect right to explain, and even to increase his claim, and the
defendant has the right to form counterclaims.
If the defendant fails to appear, the secretary of the council re
ports that fact and the matter is assigned to the next hearing of the
board of judgment. But if the plaintiff fails to appear, the situa
tion is different. In that case the affair is dropped from the rolls,
and the plaintiff can not have it again brought before the board of

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 3 2 3

conciliation until after the expiration of a week. It much more fre
quently happens, however, that the defendant fails to appear. Dur
ing 1906, out of 45,665 cases brought before the boards of concilia
tion of all the industrial courts of France, there were 8,495 in which
the defendant failed to appear. Many other cases, moreover—9,371
during 1906—were withdrawn before action was taken upon them by
the boards. In Paris in 1909, out of 24,662 cases brought before
the boards of conciliation, 5,890 were withdrawn before action was
taken.1
More than half the cases brought before the industrial courts of
France are conciliated. In the early years of the institution, how
ever, this proportion was very much higher than it is at present.
From 1831 to 1835 conciliation was effected in 97 per cent of the
cases, but this proportion fell steadily until within recent years.
From 1901 to 1903 conciliation was effected in only 51 per cent of
the cases. From 1904 to 1906, however, the proportion rose again to
53 per cent. The accompanying table shows briefly the movement:
PER CENT OF CASES BROUGHT BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL COURTS OF FRANCE
WHICH WERE CONCILIATED, FOR SPECIFIED PERIODS, 1831 TO 1908.
P e r io d .

1 8 3 1 -1 8 4 8 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
18 49 -18 5 3 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
18 5 4 -18 8 0 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1 8 8 1-18 9 6 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
18 9 7-19 0 0 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
19 0 1-19 0 3 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
19 0 4-19 0 6 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

P e r cent
o f cases
c o n c ili
a te d .

91
86
76
62
53
51
53

Unfortunately, no statistics later than those for 1906 are yet avail
able for the whole of France. In Paris, however, in 1907, only 41
per cent of the cases which were laid before the board of conciliation
were finally brought before the board of judgment. In 1908, more
over, 38 per cent, and in 1909, 39 per cent, of the cases laid before
the board of conciliation were afterwards taken to the board of
judgment.12
BOARD OF JUDGMENT.

The board of judgment is composed of an equal number of em
ployer members and of worker or employee members, including the
president or vice president. There must be at least two representa
tives of each class. The president and vice president preside alter
nately, and in their absence the presidency falls to the member who
1 See Appendix I, Table IV. For similar figures for the whole of France in 1906, by
cities, see Table I.
2 For statistics for the whole of France see Appendix I, Table I, and for those of Paris
see Appendix I, Table IV.

324

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

has been longest in office, or, in case of equality in length of service,
to the oldest. In the absence of the president, for example, he is not
replaced by the vice president, as would be the case in other assem
blies, but by the longest in service, or the oldest member of his own
class. If for any reason one of the members summoned fails to
appear, the member of the other class who has been the shortest time
in office must also retire, unless it is possible to fill the place of the
missing member by another member belonging to his class. The
board of judgment is, then, organized essentially upon the basis of
equality of representation. As in the board of conciliation, the
members serve in rotation, regardless of the categories in which they
were elected. A suit between a master weaver and his worker, for
example, may therefore come before a board composed of a master
mason and a wage-earning blacksmith.
Cases come before the board of judgment through three different
channels. As before the board of conciliation, differences may be
submitted directly by the two parties upon any day when regular
hearings are held, even, if necessary, upon the same day that they
have been brought before the board of conciliation. Under such
circumstances the secretary must enter the case on the roll, and the
court can hot refuse to hear it immediately.
If the defendant does not consent to this voluntary action, he must
be summoned, and for this two methods are provided: First, registered
letters with notice of their reception sent by the secretary; and sec
ond, summons by the bailiff, at the request of the plaintiff. Jin
either case the summons must contain the date, the name, occupation,
and residence of the plaintiff, the object of his claim, and a brief
indication of its grounds. If letters are used to summon parties,
they are never intrusted to the plaintiffs, as in the case of letters
summoning defendants to appear before the board of conciliation.
On the. contrary, the plaintiff himself receives a summons to appear
before the board of judgment. In case the notice of reception of
the registered letter is returned but the party does not appear, judg
ment may be rendered against him by default. But if the notice of
reception is not returned, then a new summons must be sent, this
time by the bailiff.
As one of the chief purposes of the industrial courts is to settle
difficulties promptly, the law provides for the least possible delay
consistent with fairness in pushing disputes through to final judg
ment. One full day, however, must intervene between the summons
and the appearance before the court, and neither the day of the sum
mons nor the day of the appearance can be counted as part of that
day. Moreover, if the distance between the place where the parties
must appear and the place where the summons must be delivered is

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND. 3 2 5

considerable, the intervening time is increased in proportion to the
distance.
Certain circumstances or methods may enable the defendant to
arrest the progress of cases before the board of judgment. As has
already been seen, the jurisdiction of the prudhommes may be
denied. This may be done in either a written or a verbal declaration.
If the court then decides that it is incompetent to act in the affair,
the case before it is, of course, ended. On the other hand, if the
court decides that the affair is within its jurisdiction, the defendant
may either accept the decision and proceed with the case, or refuse
to plead the case and await the judicial notice of the decision in order
to appeal.
It may happen, moreover, that when a case comes before the court
it has already been brought before another tribunal, another council,
or even another section of the same council in which it is then pend
ing. Or there may be pending before another tribunal, or council, or
section an intimately related case. Under such circumstances the
defendant may demand that the second case be referred to the same
court before which the first is pending.
Under certain circumstances, moreover, individual members of the
board of judgment may be challenged. The grounds for such chal
lenge are five: (1) That the member has a personal interest, either
direct or indirect, in the contest; (2) that he is related by blood or
by marriage as closely as first cousin to one of the parties; (3) that
during the year preceding the challenge there has been a lawsuit,
either criminal or civil, between him and one of the parties; (4)
that he has already given a written opinion in the case; and (5)
that he is an employer, employee, or worker of one of the parties.
It is obvious that these provisions are all designed to place the deci
sions of the board above suspicion of partiality. If the plaintiff is a
society of which a member of the board is a member the latter can not
act in the case. On the other hand, he can not be successfully chal
lenged on the ground that he has a personal interest because he has an
identical dispute before the court. In the case of relationship, how
ever, the challenge is not invalidated by the fact that the member
is also related, even more closely, to the other party. The third
ground of challenge is admitted because of the fear that the previous
suit may have engendered bitterness which might interfere with the
impartiality of the judge. But it is necessary that the previous ac
tion shall have been entered upon before the case submitted to the
council. Otherwise, it would be easy to disqualify a member by
bringing suit against him. In the case of previously expressed opin
ions, it is necessary that such opinions shall have been written, and
it is not sufficient that they shall have been given in an absolutely

326

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

parallel suit. They may have been merely written in a letter, how
ever. This rule is extended to cover cases in which a member has
given advice to one of the parties. In connection with the last ground
of challenge it must be remembered that managers, directors, mem
bers of administrative councils, etc., are all considered as employers.
The procedure of challenge is very simple. The party looks over
the roll, which is usually posted in the secretary’s office and gives
the names of the members who serve on each day of audience. If
he wishes to challenge one of these members he then makes a verbal
or written declaration to that effect to the secretary of the court.
This declaration is communicated to the member challenged, who
must reply to it within two days. If he accepts the challenge, he is
simply excluded from acting in that case. If he refuses to accept it,
or fails to reply, the matter is sent to the civil court, which must
render a decision within a week. If the challenge is sustained the
case may not be proceeded with until the president of the court has
secured another member to act upon the board of judgment.
Cases may also be prematurely ended by nonsuit or relinquishment
of the case, by acquiescence, express or tacit, in a preliminary de
cision and consent to its execution, or by compromise. Of 13,679
cases brought before the boards of judgment in France in 1906, 7,019
were withdrawn before the decision. In Paris in 1909, out of 9,666
such affairs, 4,631 were retired.1
The proceedings before the board of judgment are public, except
in cases which may cause scandal. Such cases, however, rarely come;
before the industrial courts. The president or vice president is offi
cially in charge of the hearing, and other members may question the?
parties only with his consent. Each party presents his own case and
is allowed an opportunity to reply to the arguments of his adversary.
The president and often other members, however, endeavor by ques
tions to draw out all possible information. But the members must
be careful not to show in any way their attitude or their opinions.
As before the board of conciliation either party may request the
other to take oath, or the president of the board may demand the
oath. The party who refuses to take oath loses his case* The secre
tary assists in the audiences of the board of judgment and may also
assist, with the president’s authorization, in the private deliberations
in chambers.
Incidental claims may be made by either party at any point in
the proceedings before the board has finally ended the arguments—
that is, the plaintiff may explain, increase, or decrease his demand,
but he can not introduce any new claim unrelated to that contained
in the summons, for such surprises at the last hour can not be allowed.

See Appendix I, Tables I and IV.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND SWITZERLAND.

327

The defendant, in the same way, may form a demand in reply to
that of the plaintiff; but if such a demand exceeds in value the
amount set as the limit of final jurisdiction of the industrial courts,
it renders the judgment susceptible of appeal. These demands may
be made verbally or in writing. If they are presented at the last
moment and the adversary has not had time to reply to them, it is
customary either to adjourn the case to another hearing or else to hear
both parties again on the new points introduced. If, for any reason,
it is necessary to adjourn the case, either one of the parties may
make a provisional demand upon some one point which could be
immediately decided, and this point may be settled without waiting
for final decision on the entire case. The board of judgment, and
even the board of conciliation, moreover, may prescribe whatever
provisional measures it may deem necessary to insure the preserva
tion and safety of objects in dispute.
Provision is made for bringing third parties into suits under
similar conditions to those under which they could be brought into
ordinary civil suits. Creditors, for example, or sureties, may be
brought into cases before the industrial courts, either voluntarily or
involuntarily. If, however, any question arises of the validity of
documents introduced as evidence, involving charges of forgery,
the industrial court can not pass upon the case, but must send it to
the proper tribunal.
The. board of judgment is directed, by application of an article
of the code of civil procedure, to decide cases at the first hearing,
but this rule is subject to the requirement that full knowledge of the
case has been secured. The board can always, therefore, order the
deposit of documents, etc., in its office, and take the case under ad
visement for decision at another hearing. The board can, further
more, order an inquiry, to which witnesses are summoned, can call
for the report of an expert or of experts, can itself visit the premises,
or can otherwise take measures to secure the necessary information.
Inquiries are frequently necessary, for labor contracts are rarely
in writing, and, if the customs of the trade as regards wages and
other matters are not clearly defined, witnesses are necessary for
proof. These witnesses may appear voluntarily and be heard im
mediately or they may be summoned, on the demand of one of the
parties or of both, or officially by the board. They are summoned
in the same way and under the same conditions of time as the defend
ant, and are obliged to appear and give their testimony under oath.
They receive an indemnity. Not more than five witnesses may be
heard on any one point. Supplementary hearings are at the expense
of the party who has instigated them. If the decision in the case is
not subject to appeal, the secretary merely takes notes of the state
ments of witnesses. The judgment, however, must mention the oath,

328

BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR.

summarize the general declarations of the parties, and give the sense
of the depositions. But if the decision can be appealed, the secretary
must draw up a careful report of the testimony, which must be
signed by the witnesses and by the president and secretary of the
board, to be transmitted to

Full text of Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor, Nos. 1 - 100 : January 1912 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor, No. 98, Volume XXIV

FRASER