LOCAL ARBITRATION, CONCILIATION, AND MEDIATION.

Local arbitration or conciliation of disputes, like arbitration and conciliation on a larger scale, may be practiced regularly under a general agreement to submit all matters as to which the parties themselves can not agree to such settlement, or, on the other hand, it may take place only in particular instances from time to time without such general agreement. When provision is made for the reference of all disputes as to matters concerning the interpretation of the labor contract, in the last instance, to arbitration, it is usually found in connection with the system of collective bargaining and written agreements regarding the general conditions of labor. It is seldom the case that employers and employees agree to submit minor matters as to the interpretation of the labor contract to arbitration, unless that contract itself has been adopted by collective bargaining. As a matter of fact, a very large proportion of the local agreements, which were described above, contain provisions for the settlement of minor disputes which may arise under them by conciliation or arbitration-the latter term being the one ordinarily applied, even where the procedure is more in the nature of conciliation. The most common form of machinery provided for the settlement of these disputes is the following:

The parties to any particular dispute which may arise are bound, in case they can not agree between themselves, either to select one or more persons to act as an "arbitration committtee" for that dispute, or to refer it to a permanent committee composed of an equal number of persons chosen by the organizations of employers and employees, respectively. If these representatives of the parties can not agree, they are to select some impartial person to act as an 'umpire" or odd member of the board, or to call in an umpire previously agreed upon as the ultimate arbitrator of all disputes. The umpire either alone renders a decision, or he sits in conjunction with the other members and they arrive at a decision by majority vote. It is especially noteworthy that in nearly all instances where written agreements provide for the settlement of disputes as to interpretation arising under them, they permit the ultimate decision of the differences by an impartial umpire. This is the case in the agreements of the bricklayers of Boston and New York, and in other agreements in this trade very commonly throughout the country. All of the agreements adopted after the Chicago building-trades lockout of 1900 contained similar provisions. The same is true of the agreements of the structural-iron workers of New York, the roofers and sheet-metal workers, the marble workers, the steam and hot-water fitters, and several other trades in the same city. We find also that it is very common to provide for ultimate reference to outside arbitrators in the agreements in the baking, brewing, metal-polishing, woodworking, granite-cutting, and many other trades. Only rarely are found provisions for the settlement of disputes exclusively by committees of equal numbers of representatives of the parties themselves. The agreement in the plumbing trade of St. Louis is one providing for this system only.

It is obvious that the system of arbitrating minor disputes which arise under written agreements is apt to be especially effective where the arbitration committees are permanent rather than temporary. It is more common, probably, to find provisions for establishing arbitration committees for each particular dispute. In not a few instances, however, especially where the organizations of employers and employees are strong and where the agreement system has been highly developed, we find joint committees, chosen by the organizations themselves in a more or less formal manner, which remain in office for the entire period of the agreement and have jurisdiction over all disputes. In some of these cases the umpire is selected in advance for the entire period, while in other cases the umpire is chosen only to act in particular disputes where the representatives of the organizations themselves fail to agree. The advantage of a permanent joint committee consists not merely in the fact that its members become more experienced; but especially in the fact that, since the machinery is always ready to hand, there is likely to be a stronger disposition to make use

of it than where the parties must first select arbitrators to act regarding their particular dispute.

The number of representatives of employers and employees, respectively, upon such local arbitration committees varies considerably. In perhaps a majority of instances there is one representative of the employer or employers and one of the employees. It is also quite common to have two members on each side. In the various agreements adopted at the close of the great Chicago building-trades dispute of 1900 provision was made for arbitration committees consisting in most cases of 5 members on each side. These Chicago agreements were especially detailed in their regulations regarding the methods of selecting the arbitration committee and the methods of its procedure. Each of the organizations agreed in advance that it would annually elect members of the committee. No person not actively engaged in the trade, no person occupying any other office in an organization of employers or employees except that of president, and no person holding any public office, is eligible as a member of a trade arbitration committee under these Chicago agreements. The umpire must be a person who is neither an employer of labor nor an employee, who is not identified with the building industry, and who is not an incumbent of political office. In general local agreements contain very few such specific provisions as to the arbitration committees. Such committees, however, almost always, either by definite rule or by custom, are composed of actual members of the trade, except, of course, in the case of the odd member or umpire.

Most of the joint agreements which provide for arbitration contain very few, if any, regulations regarding the methods of procedure. Usually it is tacitly assumed, even when there are two or more representatives of each side, that the settlement of disputes will be either by unanimous agreement or by reference to an outside arbitrator or umpire, rather than by mere majority vote of the immediate representatives of the parties. It is assumed that each side will act as a unit and that the decision will be arrived at by discussion. In a few instances, however, there are specific provisions that arbitration committees may act by a majority vote. This is the case, for instance, in the bricklaying trade of Boston, and it is also the case in the various Chicago building trades under the agreements adopted after the great lockout of 1900. These Chicago agreements further declare that the arbitration board shall meet monthly, and also on 3 days' notice of its president. In some agreements are found provisions limiting the time which the arbitration committee may consume in reaching the decision of any matter.

It is a frequent provision of written agreements as to the conditions of labor that no specific clause of the agreement itself shall be subject to arbitration. In other words, the judicial act of interpreting the agreement shall not override the quasilegislative act of establishing the conditions of labor by collective bargaining. We have already pointed out that in some cases the duly constituted arbitration committee acts also as the representatives of the parties in carrying on their collective bargaining for the adoption of the general agreement itself, but it has also been seen that in most cases the arbitration committee proper is not granted this great power. Agreements frequently declare that, pending the arbitration of disputed matters, there shall be no cessation of employment, and that the decisions of arbitrators shall be binding upon both parties. It is very rare, however, to find any definite method of enforcing the decision in case the parties to a dispute refuse to abide by it. In the absence of any such provisions the decision may be enforced with some degree of effectiveness by the respective organizations, as against their individual members, by the threat of excluding them from membership in the organization. When the refusal to abide by the decision is made by an entire organization, by one of the parties to the agreement as a party, there is obviously no method of enforcement, since such arbitration committees and their decisions have at present no legal standing. The rejection of the decision of arbitrators is indeed by no means uncommon. It occurs

however, less frequently than is sometimes supposed. Where the system of collective bargaining and arbitration has become established for a considerable length of time, both parties recognize what a disadvantage to themselves and to the trade generally would result from a complete breakup of the system because of refusal to carry out agreements or the decisions of arbitrators. It is where the system of collective bargaining itself is but little developed and works more or less intermittently that the decisions of arbitrators are apt to be violated.

Among the very few joint agreements which contain definite provisions for the fining of persons who refuse to carry out the decrees of the arbitration committee, are those in the Chicago building trades already referred to. These provide that any member violating any part of the agreement, or violating any decision of the arbitration board, shall be subject to a fine of from $10 to $200, to be collected by the officers of his own organization, and paid to the treasurer of the joint board. If the fine is not paid by the offender, it shall either be paid by the organization to which he belongs, or in lieu thereof it shall suspend the offending member until he pays. Arbitration in the absence of collective bargaining.—Although conciliation and arbitration regarding minor disputes arising as to the interpretation of the labor contract are usually found in connection with systems of collective bargaining for the determination of the contract itself, there are frequently individual disputes which are referred to arbitration by private individuals in the absence of formal arrangements for collective bargaining. (Arbitration by State boards is discussed below.) Thus a group of unorganized workingmen in a particular establishment may make a demand and, though usually only after a prolonged strike, the parties may agree to submit the question to the decision of an impartial arbitrator. The point at issue in such a case may be either a minor matter of interpretation, or it may, though more rarely, involve the general conditions of labor. Still more frequently, probably, are matters referred to arbitration in trades where workingmen are organized, but where they do not ordinarily carry on collective bargaining in a systematic manner with the employers. It is impossible to reach any generalizations as to the methods employed in the settlement of disputes under such circumstances, or as to the extent to which the practice prevails. It is certainly comparatively rare for disputes arising under these conditions to be referred to arbitrators. On the other hand, informal negotiation or conciliation between employers and employees regarding minor matters of dispute naturally occurs quite frequently, even although collective bargaining is not carried on in any regular and recurrent fashion.

III. FORMAL NATIONAL SYSTEMS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND ARBITRATION.

EXTENT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SYSTEMS.

The practice of collective bargaining, conciliation, and arbitration has within comparatively recent years been introduced in several very important trades on a much more wide-reaching scale than in the trades hitherto considered. There is a distinctly growing movement in favor of such methods as between organizations of employers and employees covering an industry throughout the country, or throughout large sections where the conditions of business are generally similar. It is scarcely necessary to point out that the existence of such wide-reaching systems of collective bargaining and arbitration implies a reasonable degree of organization on the part of both employers and employees. Indeed, the labor organizations concerned in these systems are among the strongest in the country. The employers are usually less formally organized, but being relatively much fewer in numbers, they are able to act together in harmony without so much machinery of organization as is necessary among the men.

Several, and perhaps the most important, of these wide-reaching systems for promoting industrial peace are those whose chief object is the adoption from time to time of agreements concerning the general conditions under which labor shall be performed, and which only secondarily seek to settle by conciliation or arbitration disputes which arise as to the interpretation of the labor contract, usually leaving these largely to local arbitration and conciliation. Of such a character is the system in vogue in the iron and steel trade in those establishments which recognize the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers and deal with it. This system took its origin in a sliding scale agreement for iron puddlers established as far back as 1865. In the case of several branches of the trade, where the conditions are fairly uniform throughout the country generally, uniform agreements regarding wages and conditions of labor are adopted which cover all union mills; while in other branches, on account of differences in local conditions, separate agreements for individual establishments are made. In the tinning works a system of collective bargaining has been adopted between the associated employers and the recently organized Tin Plate Workers' Protective Association, which is very similar to that in the iron and steel trade proper. Within the past 10 or 15 years the system of conferences and agreements has been put in force in the various branches of the glass trade-flint glass, window glass, green glass, and plate glass. In all of these branches a very large proportion of the establishments throughout the country are "union plants," and are covered by the terms of the uniform agreements.

In the pottery trade local conferences between employers and employees, of a somewhat informal character, have long been held and joint agreements adopted. In 1900, representatives of the National Brotherhood of Pottery Operatives met the leading manufacturers at Pittsburg in conference and adopted a uniform scale of wages for the entire country. The operatives in some of the leading branches at Trenton, N. J.-one of the chief centers of the industry-refused to be bound by this agreement and left the national union. The system is perhaps not yet sufficiently developed to merit detailed discussion.

By far the largest number of persons represented in a single system of collective bargaining are the bituminous coal miners of the four great "central competitive districts"-western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Various earlier and less successful attempts were made to establish such an interstate conference system, but the present highly successful system dates only from 1897. State and district conferences and agreements of a similar character, but on a less extensive scale, have also been established in most of the coal-producing regions outside the central competitive field.

The recently formed organization of longshoremen, which is especially strong on the Great Lakes, has been able, during the past two or three years, to bring about annual conferences and written agreements with the managers of the ore and coal ~7 docks at Lake Erie ports, with the lumber shippers at the upper lakes and with various other smaller organizations of employers and individual employers.

There are three or four other trades in which wide-reaching organizations of employers and employees have introduced methods for the promotion of industrial peace, which lay much stress on the settlement of particular disputes by arbitration and conciliation, to be at first carried on locally, but with ultimate appeal, if necessary, to tribunals of national scope. The most successful of these systems is in the stovefoundry trade, where it was introduced by an agreement between the Stove Founders' National Defense Association and the Iron Molders' Union in 1891. In this trade there is a system of collective bargaining for the adoption of annual agreements covering wage scales and conditions of labor throughout the country, but a conspicuous feature is the permanent agreement providing for the formal settlement of particular disputes, arising from time to time, by local and national boards of conciliation or arbitration. The arbitration feature of the system was copied closely in an agree

ment between the Iron Molders' Union and the National Founders' Association in 1898, but in this case no attempt was made to adopt national agreements regarding the general conditions under which labor shall be performed, although such agreements are very commonly adopted by local or district conferences in the trade. The National Metal Trades Association and the International Association of Machinists, after the great strikes in Chicago, Cleveland, and other cities in the spring of 1900, adopted at New York an agreement providing for a system of conciliation very similar to that in the foundry trades. Moreover the first conference, by which the system was established, adopted a general agreement prescribing the hours of labor and various other conditions throughout the country, but with the specific understanding that the making of wage scales should be left to local conferences. This system in the machinery trade, as is well known, was broken up by the general machinists' strike of 1900.

The most recent movement toward national arbitration and conciliation is found in the printing trade, an agreement having been adopted by the American Newspaper Publishers' Association and the International Typographical Union in March, 1901. In the printing trade the practice of adopting agreements covering the conditions of labor in separate establishments or localities has long been employed. The arbitration system introduced provides that, so far as employers are willing to agree with local unions to resort to arbitration, disputes regarding the adoption of these local agreements, or especially regarding their interpretation, shall be referred first to local arbitration and ultimately to a national board.

METHODS OF ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

In the case of the trades which lay most stress upon collective bargaining as distinguished from conciliation and arbitration—the mining, iron and steel, glass, and longshore trades-there is no written constitution or permanent treaty between the organizations of employers and employees establishing a definite organization and method of procedure, for the conferences by which the general agreements are adopted, or for boards of arbitration and conciliation. On the other hand, the separate constitutions and rules of the organizations of employers, and more particularly those of the organizations of employees, do provide more or less formally for the maintenance of the system, usually prescribing methods for the selection of conference committees and regulating their methods of procedure in a general way, although much is still left to unwritten custom. Even in the absence of any written joint rules of a permanent character, custom has usually introduced fairly permanent and uniform practices of collective bargaining. There can be little doubt, however, that misunderstandings would in some cases be avoided, and the continuance of the system would be more fully guaranteed, if the practice, so common in England, of adopting formal constitutions and rules for joint committees and conferences should be introduced here.

In order to appreciate the significance of the practices of these various trades as regards the organization and methods of procedure of joint conferences, it is necessary to hold clearly in mind the fundamental nature of the task which these conferences set for themselves. They are not boards of arbitration or conciliation. It is not their function to act judicially in the interpretation of existing rules and practices, nor by conciliatory methods to bring about an agreement as to minor and local matters. They meet for the purpose of bargaining collectively regarding the general conditions on which labor shall be performed throughout the trade. Their work is in a sense to be considered legislation. More strictly speaking, it is simply negotiation between two parties, through their representatives, for the formation of a contract.

It is because of this very nature of the collective bargaining process that we find