The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1873-09-13
KEoKUk. Iowa. April %. 1877


hamton Union No. IA, my decision is that
Gibson Weber is not amenable to Union
No. IA. E. ROLLET,
Asst Int. Sec'y.
sr. LOUIS, Mo, May 8, 1873.
The decision published in the ''Of8cial
Organ" stands approved. 1t is now the
duty of Binghamton Union No. Ia to re-
fund the amount paid, to Gibson Weber
WA. H. NoERR, lat. Pres.
Binghsmton Union again appealed from
the decision Of the Board, and the case is
now placed in your hands for final settle
ment.
ST. LOUIS, Mo, May 8, 1873.
G. WEBER, Corresponding Secretary Union
| No 100, Washington, d. g.
SIR You ask the question-Can two
men working on the same Job, work to-
I 9ether, viz one break bunches and the
other wrap them My answer Ia, 10. The
International Union, at its Eighth Annual
Session, reversed the decision of Ex-Pres-
ident johnson.
WM. II. NoRRR, Int. Pres.
KANSAS Cry, Mo, Nov. 2e, 1879.
/ WM h. NoERR, Int. President, st. Louis
4 SIR A man makes application TO become
a member Of this Union under the amnes-
ty; said applicant is an expelled member
/ of another Union, for non-payment of
dues and fines. Now, sir has said Union
which expelled this man, the right to claim
his initiation fee and back dues until ex-
I PEELED from that, or only initiation fee.
Not wishing the above to 20 before the
Executive Board, as the time is too short,
you would oblige by answering the above
before our next meeting, Dec. Z, 1872.
HENRY SEEP, Cor. Sec'y.
ST. LOUIS, Mo, Dec ?, 1872
H. SEEP, Corresponding Secretary Union No.
| lO2. Kansas City, Mo.
SIR Your communication came to hand,
and In reply to your question must state
that where a member is suspended and
does not make application to be reinstated,
he becomes, in the meaning of the law, an
unfair man. By the Amnesty We have no
unfair men in the trade until the close of
the 3lst day of Dec, 1872. Any Union &C
cepting such an applicant il entitled to the
Initiation Fee-always excepting loans
On Cards. 1t is expected that Unions col
lect these as heretofore, and transmit to
their proper Unions
WM. H. NoERk, Int. Pres.
Omaha Union No. 80, feeling that
that this ruling was unjust To them, desired
the opinion Of the members Of the Interna-
tional Executive Board
LEAvESwv RTH, KAN, Jan. 20, 1873.
l cannot approve Of the ruling of Pres
ident Noerr, az contained in his letter to
Kansas City Union No. No. 102, of Dec
2, 1872 D. D. OLIVE,
lst Vlce-Pres.
ALBANY, n. ", April "a, 1873.
After a careful consideration Of all the
facts, cannot approve of your decision in
the case Of Omaha Union No. SO W. Kan
sss City Union No. 102, a. in my opinion
it is not in keeping with the Constitution
of the International Union. nor the spirit
that conceived the report recommending
the Amnesty Proclamation in the st. Louis
Convention j. A. HEENAN,
End Vice-Pres-
Troy, n. Y, April 27, 1873
1 concur in the opinion of End Vice
President j. A. Heenan.
PETER CADY, Int. Sec'y.
KEoKuk, Iowa, May 9, 1873
In regard to the case of Omaha Union
VS.. hAIlBAS 1lty NnAOiA, WOuAu as
understand the Amnesty Proclamation il
pardons all unfair men, and admits them
to membership by paying the Initiation
Fee. In my opinion Kansas City Union.
and not Omaha, is entitled to the lnitia-
ton Fee of Al Hinkel.
Z. RoLLLTT,
Asst. Int. Secy.
ST. LOUIS, May 22, 1873
The decision in the case Of Kansas City
Union vs. Omaha Union is not approved.
WM H. NoERR, Int. Pres
ST. LOUIS, Mo, March II, 1873.
j. L. AUBREY, Corresponding Secretary Union
No Al, Aurora, Ill.
SIR Having thoroughly examined the
statements furnished by Aurora and Chi
cago Unions and the law bearing on the
case, must decide that the action of Au-
rora Union in not publishing Mr.. Lackey
ian apprentice) to the trade, was contrary
to International Law. All applicants must
be published The law exempts no one
be they apprentices or hailing from other
places.
Your failure, however, in obeying the
law does not Justify Chicago Union in re-
fusing to collect the endorsement on the
Card granted by Aurora Union TO John
Lackey, nor has Chicago Union the right
to set up their judgment in opposition to
Aurora Union a. to the competency of
John Lackey az q capable workman In
nv Judgment Chicago Union il responsible
for the endorsement, and must either col
lect the amount or pay it out Of the funds
Of their Union. WM. h. NOERR,
Int. Pres.
LEAvENwoRrH, KAN, March l6, 1873.
concur with you in your views Of the
case, with the exception of q union being
required to publish an apprentice. My in
terpretation Of that Section Of the Con-
stitution is, that it only applies TO men
that union knows nothing Of, and has
reasons to believe have worked in the ju-
rudictiun of other unions. With this ex-
ception, fully agree with your decisi IN.
D. D, OLIVE, lst Vice-Pres.
ALBANY, April "a, 1873.
After q thorough examination of all the
evidence / concur in your decision in the
case Of Aurora Union No. Al vs. Chicago
Union No. IL J. A. HEENAN,
End Vice-Pres.
Troy, N Y, May Z, 1873.
| concur in your decision in the case of
Aurora Union No. Al vs. Chicago Union
No. IL. PETER CADY, Int Sec'y.
KEoKUK, Iowa, May 8, 1873
Having read the statements furnished by
Aurora and Chicago Unions, must decide
that it was unlawful for Aurora Union to
elect cigar maker to membership without
publishing him to the trade neither was
it right for Chicago Union to reject said
Gard. and refuse to collect endorsements
on said Gard. In my estimation Chicago
Union 10 responsible for the endorsement
ON said Card. Z. RoLLET,
Asst. Int. seC'y.
ST. LOUIS, May ~, 1873.
The case of Aurors union No. Al W
Chicago union No. IL having been submit
ted to the Board for their decision, unions
Iii rlaaaa rotica that all nnnlinm nkm rp,rmf