ARBITRATION AS TO SPECIFIC DISPUTES.

In several of the systems designed primarily to secure collective bargaining regarding general labor conditions, provision is also made for the settlement of minor and local disputes arising from time to time, especially as to interpretation of the general agreement. The methods of adjusting these disputes are much less formally provided for in these trades than in the three or four where conciliation and arbitration as to specific disputes are the chief feature in the relations of national organizations of employers and employees, and less formally, too, than is usually the case in those trades in Great Britain where the practice of conciliation and arbitration exists. It is, of course, true that when the general conditions of labor for a given industry are quite minutely regulated by an annual agreement, occasions for dispute between employers and employees are very much less likely to arise than where the conditions of labor are determined between individual employers and their men, or at most by local organizations only. Thus in the glass trades it is stated that disputes as to minor matters are comparatively rare. The joint annual agreements in these trades prohibit cessation of work or violation of their own terms. Differences as to interpretation or as to the prices for newly introduced articles may indeed occur, although the annual agreements are so detailed and specific that such differences are apt to be very few.

In the glass-bottle trade such minor disputes, so far as they can not be adjusted between the parties immediately in interest, are settled informally by the same joint committee which adopts the annual scales. In some of the divisions of the flintglass trade local committees, composed of an equal number of employers and employees, are provided for by the annual agreements, and minor disputes are settled by these committees. The agreements of the longshoremen and the dock managers provide that local disputes which can not otherwise be settled shall be referred to local arbitration, not by permanent boards, but by boards selected by the parties for each particular difference.

It has been felt as a special lack in the bituminous coal trade that, at least in most mining districts, there is no effective method for disposing of the minor disputes which arise from time to time. There is especially no permanent joint committee for the entire central competitive field to which differences arising in connection with the interstate agreement may ultimately be referred. However, it is especially in regard to conditions in particular sections or localities that differences of this minor character are most apt to occur, and fortunately a growing movement is manifest toward establishing State and local machinery for arbitration in this industry. In the bituminous district of Indiana, as well as in the block-coal district of that State, local agreements provide for the arbitration of all disputes of this character, the procedure being very similar to that adopted by the longshoremen. In Illinois elaborate provision is made for trade arbitration as to local disputes. The joint annual agreement in this State specifically directs that any local trouble shall be referred in the first instance to the local officers of the mine and of the miners' organization, with ultimate appeal, after two or three intermediate stages, to the State officers of the United Mine Workers and the representative of the Illinois Coal Operators' Association. No arrangement is made for the calling in of a disinterested person in case of failure of these officers to agree. Some disputes have been referred to the national president of the United Mine Workers, Mr. Mitchell, in conjunction with Mr. Justi, commissioner of the Illinois Coal Operators' Association.

In the iron and steel trade the constitution of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers directs the formation of mill committees to represent the employees in dealings with employers as to minor matters. Manufacturers who enter into agreements with the organization bind themselves to recognize this mill committee. In case of failure to reach a settlement locally the matter is to be taken I C-VOL XVII-01-VII

up by the district officers of the Amalgamated Association in connection with the mill management. Although there is no provision for ultimate reference to a formally constituted joint board of employers and employees or to an outside arbitrator, it is stated that the spirit of employers and employees is usually such as not to tolerate a cessation of work on account of local differences in plants where the Amalgamated Association is dealt with. In the manufacture of bar iron an adjuster is employed by the associations of employers and employees, whose duty it is to investigate differences as to the prices of products which become the basis for the sliding scale of wages. This adjuster has very considerable powers of inspecting the accounts of the various plants, and it is stated that his work has usually been very successful. It is of a technical administrative character rather than judicial. Nevertheless, the adjuster seems to be able in many instances to bring about a satisfactory settlement of differences of a somewhat more general character.

The tin workers' agreement with the American Tin Plate Company provides for settlement of disputes by negotiations between the "mill committee" of the men and the employer, with appeal to the district officers of the union and the district manager, and ultimately to the same joint committee which adopts the annual agreements.

As already pointed out, there are four trades in which systems of arbitration as to specific disputes have been established in a formal manner and on a national scale. These are the stove-molding trade, the general foundry trade, the machinists' trade (now not in existence), and the printing trade. It is noteworthy that in all of these cases the system is established by a permanent written agreement between organizations of employers and employees, and does not rest, as in the trades hitherto discussed, on the annual agreements regarding the conditions of labor, or on mere custom or tacit understanding. These permanent agreements in the first three trades named prohibit altogether strikes and lockouts on the part of members of the organizations and provide for the settlement of all differences by joint committees. In the printing trade, on the other hand, the system of arbitration applies only in the case of such employers as enter into contract with unions to be subject to it.

It is noteworthy among the four trades just named that only in the case of the printing trade is there provision for referring to an outside person disputes as to which the direct representatives of the organizations of employers and employees can not agree. In the stove-foundry, the general foundry, and the machinists' trades we find systems of trade arbitration and conciliation in the strict sense. In these trades the agreements declare that the parties to all disputes shall endeavor to come to an amicable understanding among themselves before appealing to a higher tribunal. If they fail to agree, the dispute is to be referred to representatives of the respective organizations in the several large districts into which the country is divided. In the stove-foundry trade the final appeal is to the presidents of the respective national organizations of employers and employees or to delegates designated by them, but if these two can not decide the matter satisfactorily to themselves they may, by mutual agreement, summon a conference committee consisting of three members, previously elected by each organization for an annual term. In the general foundry trade the presidents of the respective organizations, or their representatives, act always, when formal decisions are to be rendered, in conjunction with two other members of each association. Doubtless in practice the presidents attempt to agree between themselves and to influence the disputants to reach a peaceful settlement before calling in associates on the committee. The system which was recently in existence in the machinists' trade was almost precisely similar.

In all three of the systems just mentioned the joint committees of arbitration may act by majority vote. In practice doubtless, as in the case of those conferences which adopt agreements as to the general conditions of labor, action is usually taken by unanimous vote. In fact it is probable that the functions of the joint committees of

employers and employees consist largely in leading the parties to disputes to a reconciliation and compromise between themselves, although they have power to render binding decisions.

In the printing trade the agreement adopted in 1901 provides for formal local boards of arbitration, to be established in connection with each separate dispute. One member is to be chosen by each party and these two select a third. Appeal may be taken from local arbitration to the respective presidents of the International Typographical Union and the American Newspaper Publishers' Association, who, if they fail to agree, may select an impartial person as a third member of the board. The finding of a majority of the board, whether local or national, is binding.

The joint arbitration agreement in the printing trade apparently indicates no tendency toward the adoption of uniform wage scales or uniform agreements regarding the conditions of labor throughout the country. One of the chief motives for entering into the agreement was to provide for the effective enforcement of the contracts between local unions and individual employers, or local associations of employers, which are made in many instances. Since there is no restriction as to the nature of the disputes which may be submitted to arbitration, it is obvious that questions as to the general conditions of labor, so far as localities are concerned, may be submitted to settlement in this manner, as well as mere questions of interpretation, but this is not likely to occur very often in practice. In the foundry and machinery trades, however, as we have seen, there has been a disposition toward the development of collective bargaining on a national basis.

IV. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND TRADE ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

Important as are the systems of collective bargaining and of trade arbitration and conciliation in the United States, they are comparatively insignificant beside those in Great Britain. There the practices date back to a much earlier time; they have been extended much more widely, and they are much more thoroughly systematized.

Because of this longer experience British employers and employees have established very thorough and fairly permanent systems in many trades. It is especially noteworthy that in not a few instances they have adopted standing written agreements containing the constitution and rules of procedure of joint boards and conferences. Such permanent constitutions and rules are almost entirely lacking in the United States. Many of the systems of collective bargaining and arbitration in Great Britain, moreover, are wide reaching in their scope. While there are perhaps not more than two or three trades in which these systems apply throughout the entire country, there are many instances where they cover large districts in which the conditions of competition are approximately similar. The reports of the British labor department show no less than 53 regularly established joint boards or conferences which were in active operation during the year 1899. A large proportion of these cover numerous establishments and many thousands of workingmen.

It must not be supposed, however, that these methods for promoting peaceful relations between employers and employees have been universally adopted in Great Britain or have altogether superseded strikes and lockouts. They are still confined to the skilled trades, and apply to by no means all of them. They have been developed most highly, perhaps, in the coal-mining industry and in the iron and steel, cotton, boot and shoe, and shipbuilding trades. A number of the leading systems are described in detail in the body of the present report.

Notwithstanding the long history of the development of collective bargaining and of arbitration and conciliation in Great Britain, no single system has been worked out which can be considered typical or the one most generally approved. The methods, indeed, are quite as various as those in the United States. In a large num

ber of trades the systems have been organized with a reasonably clear recognition of the important distinction, upon which emphasis has already repeatedly been laid, between disputes relating to the general labor contract and disputes which arise regarding the interpretation of that contract. In some of the British trades, boards or conferences are established, usually under the name of wages boards, whose primary function is to decide matters of the first class. Such boards are usually composed of a considerable number of representatives of each side. In some instances provision is made for the reference of disputed matters relating to the general labor contract, in cases where the representatives of the party can not agree, to an impartial umpire-a practice which, as we have seen, is scarcely ever found in the important systems of collective bargaining in the United States. Nevertheless, British opinion generally seems opposed to calling in outsiders to decide important matters of this sort, and even in those trades where the practice is permissible under the joint rules it is comparatively seldom actually resorted to.

In numerous cases in Great Britain we find boards composed of equal numbers of employers and employees, whose duties are confined almost wholly to the settlement of minor disputes, those of the second class above distinguished. These boards are usually known as boards of conciliation. The rules of a considerable majority of these boards provide for reference to independent arbitrators of matters as to which the representatives of the employers and employees can not agree, and their services are in practice quite frequently employed. Thus we find, that during the years 1894 to 1899, in from one-sixth to two-fifths of the cases reported by the British labor department as having been settled by joint boards (of both classes) the process was one of arbitration, while in the other cases settlements were effected by collective bargaining or conciliation directly between the representatives of the parties.

There are a few trades in which separate boards or methods exist for the settlement of questions relating to the general labor contract and of those regarding the interpretation of the contract, respectively. In some other trades a single board has authority over both classes of disputes, although minor matters are in such cases often settled by subcommittees of the main board. In still other trades only a single board exists, which covers only one class of disputes.

The practice of prescribing the terms of the labor contract from time to time by written agreements between employers and employees is also highly developed in Great Britain. The work of wages boards very frequently expresses itself in the form of such agreements, while in many trades having no regularly organized wages boards local agreements are adopted from time to time by less formal conferences between employers and employees. For example, in the building trades of Great Britain we find practices very similar to those which are so common in the building trades in this country. Written agreements are adopted which fix the general conditions of labor and which provide for the settlement of minor disputes by arbitration, either by a permanent local board or by a board specially constituted for the particular dispute.

The sliding-scale system is employed somewhat more extensively in Great Britain than in the United States. It is, however, still confined to relatively narrow limits. In several of the large coal-producing districts wages are fixed on the sliding-scale principle, and the same is true in various branches of the iron and steel industry in particular localities. The system seems to be considered very satisfactory by those trades which have adopted it, but its applicability to other trades is frequently questioned by both employers and employees.

It is impossible to present any general estimate as to the effect of these systems of collective bargaining, arbitration, and conciliation in Great Britain. As is the case in the United States, the practice is most effective in those trades where both employers and employees are strongly organized. The chief service accomplished is in the settlement of disputes before cessation of employment rather than after it-in the

prevention of strikes and lockouts rather than in adjusting differences after they occur. The reports of the British labor department show the number of cases decided by the more permanent and formally constituted joint wage boards and boards of conciliation. The number has varied from year to year since 1894 between the limits of 675 and 1,365. The number of actual strikes and lockouts adjusted by the intervention of these boards, on the other hand, has ranged only from 10 to 19 yearly, and the total number of persons affected by strikes and lockouts settled by these boards for the 6 years from 1894 to 1899 was only 29,337. The number of persons whose wages were changed through the action of these boards was 15,522 in 1897, but rose to 379,285 in 1899, in which year there were general changes in the wage scales in several of the leading coal mining districts. The reports of the British labor department show, further, that even in the absence of such formal methods of collective bargaining most of the changes in wages take place by peaceful negotiations between employers and employees rather than as the result of strikes and lockouts. This is of course true also in the United States, but apparently the proportion of peaceful settlements is considerably higher in Great Britain.

The experience of other foreign countries is so unimportant, as compared with that of Great Britain, as scarcely to need comment in this summary. Reference to the body of the report is accordingly made. It may be noted however that, in the great Belgian coal mines of Mariemont and Bascoup a system of conciliation regarding minor differences has been in successful operation for more than 15 years.

V. GOVERNMENTAL ARBITRATION.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN THE SEVERAL STATES.

The great injury to the general public interests, as well as to those of the parties directly concerned, which often results from strikes and lockouts has led various governments all over the world to enact legal measures designed to aid in the prevention of such disputes or in bringing about a prompt settlement of them. The councils of experts (conseils de prud'hommes), established in France as far back as 1806, can perhaps scarcely be considered as bodies designed primarily for this purpose, since their functions are confined to the adjustment of minor disputes between the employer and his individual employee. England was the first country to provide legal machinery for the settlement of labor disputes of a general character. Her early law, however, simply authorized masters and men, on their own initiative, to establish arbitration boards, and in practice little, if any, use was ever made of the statutory provisions. It remained for the American States, as far as can be ascertained, to take the first step in creating State boards of arbitration, which should furnish machinery always at hand for inquiring into labor disputes, for endeavoring to lead the parties by conciliation to a peaceful settlement, and for rendering authoritative decisions of matters which the parties may agree to submit to such arbitration.

The first State board of arbitration was established by New York in 1886, but the legislature of Massachusetts established a similar board, apparently independently, in the same year. The laws of these two States, which differ in some significant regards, have become the basis for the legislation in 14 other States. The greater number of these-California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, Minnesota, Ohio, Utah, and Wisconsin-have followed in the main the Massachusetts act, while New Jersey, Michigan, and Connecticut have kept more nearly to the line of the New York statute. Indiana has established a State board with a somewhat different composition and method of procedure from that found in other States. It is to be noted at the outset, however, that in several of the States which have passed such laws State boards of arbitration have either never been created or, having been created, have done little or even nothing at all. In fact, the only States in